User login
COORDINATEd effort boosts optimal therapy in patients with T2D and ASCVD
NEW ORLEANS – Twenty cardiology clinics successfully intensified the medical care they gave patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) after receiving a simple and scalable investigational intervention that gave the clinics’ staffs guidance on best prescribing practices and implementation and also provided quality-improvement feedback.
Within a year, these clinics quadrupled optimal medical management of these patients, compared with control clinics, in a randomized trial involving a total of 43 clinics and 1,049 patients.
“This multifaceted intervention is effective in increasing the prescription of evidence-based therapies in adults with T2D and ASCVD,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“The next step is to scale this intervention across cardiology practices” interested in improving the quality of care they deliver to these patients, added Dr. Pagidipati, a cardiologist specializing in cardiometabolic disease prevention at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The goal is getting patients on triple therapy
The primary outcome of the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial was the change in the number of patients with T2D and ASCVD who received prescriptions for agents from three recommended medication classes and at recommended dosages: a high-intensity statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and at least one agent from either of two classes that have both cardiovascular-protective and antihyperglycemic effects: the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists.
Among the 457 patients treated at the 20 cardiology clinics who received the quality-improvement intervention, 37.9% were on the promoted triple therapy after 12 months, compared with 14.5% of the 588 patients treated at the 23 clinics that continued with their usual care approach. This 23.4–percentage point increase in triple-class prescribing at recommended dosages represented a significant 4.4-fold increase in the goal prescribing endpoint after adjustment for possible confounders, Dr. Pagidipati reported.
Simultaneously with her report, the findings also appeared online in JAMA.
At baseline, 41%-50% of the patients were on both a high-intensity statin and a RASi, with a total of about 58%-67% on a high-intensity statin and about 70%-75% on a RASi. Fewer than 1% of patients were on SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1–receptor agonists at baseline. By design, no patient could be on all three categories of medication at baseline.
At their last follow-up visit (after 12 months for 97% of patients, or after 6 months for the remainder) 71% of the patients at practices that received the intervention were on a high-intensity statin, 81% were taking a RASi, and 60% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1–receptor agonist. Among the control patients, 58% were on a high-intensity statin, 68% on a RASi, and 36% were on one of the antihyperglycemic agents.
Effective interventions and the need for a champion
The clinics randomized to the active arm received instruction from a three-member team, either from an in-person or virtual one-time visit, on an intervention comprising several initiatives:
- Analysis of the barriers to evidence-based care at each clinic.
- Development of local interdisciplinary care pathways to address the identified barriers.
- Facilitation of care coordination among clinicians – particularly among cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians.
- Education of the clinic staff, including provision of educational materials.
- Auditing of clinic performance using specified metrics and feedback on the findings.
Clinics in the usual care group were given current clinical practice guidelines.
The investigational intervention was, by design, “low-tech and designed to be scalable,” explained Dr. Pagidipati, and once the COVID pandemic started the intervention team shifted to a virtual consultation with participating practices that was mostly front-loaded, followed by monthly phone calls to give clinics feedback on their progress.
Among the most helpful aspects of the intervention was involving the entire clinic staff, including pharmacists, nurses, and advanced care practitioners; boosting familiarity with the relevant medications and their appropriate use; and advice on navigating insurance-coverage barriers such as prior authorizations.
“What was most critical was having a local champion who took on making this effort an important part” of what the clinic was trying to do, she explained. “All it takes is passion, and the tenacity of a bulldog,” Dr. Pagidipati said.
Research advances often don’t translate into management changes
“We don’t do a great job of translating findings from trials to patient care, so any method we can use to improve that will improve practice,” commented Kristen B. Campbell, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist at Duke who was not involved in the study.
“Although the trial was not powered to look at patient outcomes, we think that patients will benefit” because all the recommended medication uses have been proven to help patients in prior trials, Dr. Campbell noted.
“A particular strength of this study was its simple design. All the interventions are low-tech and scalable.”
The low level of use of guideline-directed medical therapy in American adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is “incredible,” said Christopher B. Granger, MD, a senior investigator on the study and a cardiologist and professor at Duke.
The researchers who ran the study are now focused on evaluating which cardiology clinics and patients had the most success from the intervention and are using that information to further refine implementation. They are also planning to encourage cardiology practices as well as other relevant medical groups to incorporate the intervention and implementation model used in the trial. The intervention program is detailed and available at no charge on the COORDINATE-Diabetes website.
COORDINATE-Diabetes received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Dr. Pagidipati has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics, and she has received research grants from Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Eggland’s Best. Dr. Campbell had no disclosures. Dr. Granger has received personal fees and research funding from numerous companies.
NEW ORLEANS – Twenty cardiology clinics successfully intensified the medical care they gave patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) after receiving a simple and scalable investigational intervention that gave the clinics’ staffs guidance on best prescribing practices and implementation and also provided quality-improvement feedback.
Within a year, these clinics quadrupled optimal medical management of these patients, compared with control clinics, in a randomized trial involving a total of 43 clinics and 1,049 patients.
“This multifaceted intervention is effective in increasing the prescription of evidence-based therapies in adults with T2D and ASCVD,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“The next step is to scale this intervention across cardiology practices” interested in improving the quality of care they deliver to these patients, added Dr. Pagidipati, a cardiologist specializing in cardiometabolic disease prevention at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The goal is getting patients on triple therapy
The primary outcome of the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial was the change in the number of patients with T2D and ASCVD who received prescriptions for agents from three recommended medication classes and at recommended dosages: a high-intensity statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and at least one agent from either of two classes that have both cardiovascular-protective and antihyperglycemic effects: the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists.
Among the 457 patients treated at the 20 cardiology clinics who received the quality-improvement intervention, 37.9% were on the promoted triple therapy after 12 months, compared with 14.5% of the 588 patients treated at the 23 clinics that continued with their usual care approach. This 23.4–percentage point increase in triple-class prescribing at recommended dosages represented a significant 4.4-fold increase in the goal prescribing endpoint after adjustment for possible confounders, Dr. Pagidipati reported.
Simultaneously with her report, the findings also appeared online in JAMA.
At baseline, 41%-50% of the patients were on both a high-intensity statin and a RASi, with a total of about 58%-67% on a high-intensity statin and about 70%-75% on a RASi. Fewer than 1% of patients were on SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1–receptor agonists at baseline. By design, no patient could be on all three categories of medication at baseline.
At their last follow-up visit (after 12 months for 97% of patients, or after 6 months for the remainder) 71% of the patients at practices that received the intervention were on a high-intensity statin, 81% were taking a RASi, and 60% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1–receptor agonist. Among the control patients, 58% were on a high-intensity statin, 68% on a RASi, and 36% were on one of the antihyperglycemic agents.
Effective interventions and the need for a champion
The clinics randomized to the active arm received instruction from a three-member team, either from an in-person or virtual one-time visit, on an intervention comprising several initiatives:
- Analysis of the barriers to evidence-based care at each clinic.
- Development of local interdisciplinary care pathways to address the identified barriers.
- Facilitation of care coordination among clinicians – particularly among cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians.
- Education of the clinic staff, including provision of educational materials.
- Auditing of clinic performance using specified metrics and feedback on the findings.
Clinics in the usual care group were given current clinical practice guidelines.
The investigational intervention was, by design, “low-tech and designed to be scalable,” explained Dr. Pagidipati, and once the COVID pandemic started the intervention team shifted to a virtual consultation with participating practices that was mostly front-loaded, followed by monthly phone calls to give clinics feedback on their progress.
Among the most helpful aspects of the intervention was involving the entire clinic staff, including pharmacists, nurses, and advanced care practitioners; boosting familiarity with the relevant medications and their appropriate use; and advice on navigating insurance-coverage barriers such as prior authorizations.
“What was most critical was having a local champion who took on making this effort an important part” of what the clinic was trying to do, she explained. “All it takes is passion, and the tenacity of a bulldog,” Dr. Pagidipati said.
Research advances often don’t translate into management changes
“We don’t do a great job of translating findings from trials to patient care, so any method we can use to improve that will improve practice,” commented Kristen B. Campbell, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist at Duke who was not involved in the study.
“Although the trial was not powered to look at patient outcomes, we think that patients will benefit” because all the recommended medication uses have been proven to help patients in prior trials, Dr. Campbell noted.
“A particular strength of this study was its simple design. All the interventions are low-tech and scalable.”
The low level of use of guideline-directed medical therapy in American adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is “incredible,” said Christopher B. Granger, MD, a senior investigator on the study and a cardiologist and professor at Duke.
The researchers who ran the study are now focused on evaluating which cardiology clinics and patients had the most success from the intervention and are using that information to further refine implementation. They are also planning to encourage cardiology practices as well as other relevant medical groups to incorporate the intervention and implementation model used in the trial. The intervention program is detailed and available at no charge on the COORDINATE-Diabetes website.
COORDINATE-Diabetes received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Dr. Pagidipati has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics, and she has received research grants from Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Eggland’s Best. Dr. Campbell had no disclosures. Dr. Granger has received personal fees and research funding from numerous companies.
NEW ORLEANS – Twenty cardiology clinics successfully intensified the medical care they gave patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) after receiving a simple and scalable investigational intervention that gave the clinics’ staffs guidance on best prescribing practices and implementation and also provided quality-improvement feedback.
Within a year, these clinics quadrupled optimal medical management of these patients, compared with control clinics, in a randomized trial involving a total of 43 clinics and 1,049 patients.
“This multifaceted intervention is effective in increasing the prescription of evidence-based therapies in adults with T2D and ASCVD,” Neha J. Pagidipati, MD, said at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
“The next step is to scale this intervention across cardiology practices” interested in improving the quality of care they deliver to these patients, added Dr. Pagidipati, a cardiologist specializing in cardiometabolic disease prevention at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
The goal is getting patients on triple therapy
The primary outcome of the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial was the change in the number of patients with T2D and ASCVD who received prescriptions for agents from three recommended medication classes and at recommended dosages: a high-intensity statin, a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and at least one agent from either of two classes that have both cardiovascular-protective and antihyperglycemic effects: the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or the glucagonlike peptide 1 (GLP-1)–receptor agonists.
Among the 457 patients treated at the 20 cardiology clinics who received the quality-improvement intervention, 37.9% were on the promoted triple therapy after 12 months, compared with 14.5% of the 588 patients treated at the 23 clinics that continued with their usual care approach. This 23.4–percentage point increase in triple-class prescribing at recommended dosages represented a significant 4.4-fold increase in the goal prescribing endpoint after adjustment for possible confounders, Dr. Pagidipati reported.
Simultaneously with her report, the findings also appeared online in JAMA.
At baseline, 41%-50% of the patients were on both a high-intensity statin and a RASi, with a total of about 58%-67% on a high-intensity statin and about 70%-75% on a RASi. Fewer than 1% of patients were on SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1–receptor agonists at baseline. By design, no patient could be on all three categories of medication at baseline.
At their last follow-up visit (after 12 months for 97% of patients, or after 6 months for the remainder) 71% of the patients at practices that received the intervention were on a high-intensity statin, 81% were taking a RASi, and 60% were on an SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1–receptor agonist. Among the control patients, 58% were on a high-intensity statin, 68% on a RASi, and 36% were on one of the antihyperglycemic agents.
Effective interventions and the need for a champion
The clinics randomized to the active arm received instruction from a three-member team, either from an in-person or virtual one-time visit, on an intervention comprising several initiatives:
- Analysis of the barriers to evidence-based care at each clinic.
- Development of local interdisciplinary care pathways to address the identified barriers.
- Facilitation of care coordination among clinicians – particularly among cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care clinicians.
- Education of the clinic staff, including provision of educational materials.
- Auditing of clinic performance using specified metrics and feedback on the findings.
Clinics in the usual care group were given current clinical practice guidelines.
The investigational intervention was, by design, “low-tech and designed to be scalable,” explained Dr. Pagidipati, and once the COVID pandemic started the intervention team shifted to a virtual consultation with participating practices that was mostly front-loaded, followed by monthly phone calls to give clinics feedback on their progress.
Among the most helpful aspects of the intervention was involving the entire clinic staff, including pharmacists, nurses, and advanced care practitioners; boosting familiarity with the relevant medications and their appropriate use; and advice on navigating insurance-coverage barriers such as prior authorizations.
“What was most critical was having a local champion who took on making this effort an important part” of what the clinic was trying to do, she explained. “All it takes is passion, and the tenacity of a bulldog,” Dr. Pagidipati said.
Research advances often don’t translate into management changes
“We don’t do a great job of translating findings from trials to patient care, so any method we can use to improve that will improve practice,” commented Kristen B. Campbell, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist at Duke who was not involved in the study.
“Although the trial was not powered to look at patient outcomes, we think that patients will benefit” because all the recommended medication uses have been proven to help patients in prior trials, Dr. Campbell noted.
“A particular strength of this study was its simple design. All the interventions are low-tech and scalable.”
The low level of use of guideline-directed medical therapy in American adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is “incredible,” said Christopher B. Granger, MD, a senior investigator on the study and a cardiologist and professor at Duke.
The researchers who ran the study are now focused on evaluating which cardiology clinics and patients had the most success from the intervention and are using that information to further refine implementation. They are also planning to encourage cardiology practices as well as other relevant medical groups to incorporate the intervention and implementation model used in the trial. The intervention program is detailed and available at no charge on the COORDINATE-Diabetes website.
COORDINATE-Diabetes received funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. Dr. Pagidipati has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, and CRISPR Therapeutics, and she has received research grants from Amgen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Eggland’s Best. Dr. Campbell had no disclosures. Dr. Granger has received personal fees and research funding from numerous companies.
AT ACC 2023
Atorvastatin cut anthracycline cardiac dysfunction in lymphoma
NEW ORLEANS – Atorvastatin treatment of patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment with an anthracycline significantly cut the incidence of incident cardiac dysfunction by about two-thirds during 12 months of treatment, in a multicenter, randomized trial with 300 enrolled patients.
“These data support the use of atorvastatin among patients with lymphoma being treated with anthracyclines where prevention of cardiac systolic dysfunction is important,” concluded Tomas G. Neilan, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
He highlighted that an important difference between the new study, STOP-CA, and a major prior study with a neutral effect published in 2022, was that STOP-CA “was powered for a major change” in cardiac function as the study’s primary outcome, a decline from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 10% that also reduced ejection fraction to less than 55%.
“We can consider these medications [atorvastatin] for patients at higher risk for cardiac toxicity from anthracyclines, such as patients who receive a higher dose of an anthracycline, older patients, people with obesity, and women, commented Anita Deswal, MD, professor and chair of the department of cardiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who was not involved with the study.
A basis for an ‘important discussion’ with patients
“For patients receiving higher doses of anthracyclines, the STOP-CA trial says that whether to start a statin for cardiac protection is now an important discussion” for these patients to have with their treating clinicians. ”That was not the case before today,” commented Ronald M. Witteles, MD, a cardiologist and professor who specializes in cardio-oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“For a patient being treated for lymphoma or for another cancer and treated with equal or higher anthracycline doses, such as patients with a sarcoma, this trial’s results at the very least warrant a discussion between physicians and patients to make the decision,” Dr. Witteles, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. But he also cautioned that “whether an individual patient should take a statin in this scenario is still not a no-brainer. While the trial was positive, it was for an imaging rather than for a clinical endpoint.”
Experts noted that a similar study with the clinical endpoint of heart failure would require both many more randomized patients as well as much longer follow-up. STOP-CA was not powered for this endpoint. During its 12-month duration, a total of 11 patients developed heart failure, with no between group difference.
STOP-CA enrolled adults with lymphoma (Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin) and scheduled to undergo anthracycline treatment at eight U.S. centers and one in Canada, and excluded patients already on statin treatment or those for whom a statin was already indicated. Of the 300 enrolled patients, 286 had 12-month follow-up. Randomization assigned patients to receive either 40 mg daily of atorvastatin or placebo.
Their cumulative, median anthracycline dose was 300 mg/m2, which is typical for treating lymphoma, but higher than the typical dose use for patients with breast cancer. At baseline, average LVEF was 63%, and after 12 months this had declined to 59%. Forty-six of the 286 patients assessed after 12 months fulfilled the primary outcome of at least a 10–percentage point reduction from baseline in their LVEF and a decline in LVEF to less than 55%. Researchers used cardiac MR to assess LVEF at baseline, and in most patients at follow-up, but a minority of patients had their follow-up assessments by echocardiography because of logistical issues. Greater than 90% of patients were adherent to their assigned regimen.
Tripled incidence of cardiac dysfunction in placebo patients
The incidence of this outcome was 9% among the patients who received atorvastatin, and 22% among those on placebo, a significant difference. The calculated odds of the primary outcome was 2.9-fold more likely among the patients treated with placebo, compared with those who received atorvastatin, also a significant difference.
The study’s secondary outcome was patients who had at least a 5% drop from baseline in their LVEF and with a LVEF of less than 55% after 12 months. This outcome occurred in 13% of patients treated with atorvastatin and in 29% of those who received placebo, a significant difference.
The atorvastatin and placebo arms showed no significant differences in adverse events during the study, with roughly similar incidence rates for muscle pain, elevated liver enzymes, and renal failure. None of the enrolled patients developed myositis.
Atorvastatin treatment also produced an expected average 37% decline from baseline in levels of LDL cholesterol.
“This was a well-designed and important trial,” said Dr. Witteles. “Anthracyclines remain a mainstay of cancer therapies for a number of malignancies, such as lymphoma and sarcoma, and the cardiac side effects of development of cardiac dysfunction are unequivocally real.”
The importance of a clinically meaningful effect
The results especially contrast with the findings from the PREVENT study, published in 2022, which compared a daily, 40-mg atorvastatin treatment with placebo in 279 randomized patients with breast cancer and treated for 24 months. However, patients in PREVENT had a cumulative, median anthracycline dose of 240 mg/m2, and the study’s primary outcome was the average change from baseline in LVEF after 24 months of treatment, which was a reduction of 0.08 percentage points in the placebo arm, a nonsignificant difference.
In STOP-CA, the average change in LVEF from baseline was a 1–percentage point reduction in the placebo arm, compared with the atorvastatin-treated patients, a difference that was statistically significant, but “not clinically significant,” said Dr. Neilan, director of the cardio-oncology program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He cited the good fortune of the STOP-CA investigators when they received a recommendation from reviewers early on to design their study to track a clinically meaningful change in LVEF rather than just looking at the average overall change.
Dr. Deswal also noted that it is unlikely that future studies will examine the efficacy of a statin for preventing LVEF in patients across the range of cancers that are eligible for anthracycline treatment. As a result, she predicted that “we may have to extrapolate” the results from STOP-CA to patients with other cancer types.
STOP-CA received no commercial funding. Dr. Neilan has been a consultant for and received fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRC Oncology, Genentech, Roche, and Sanofi, and has received grant funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squib. Dr. Deswal and Dr. Witteles had no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – Atorvastatin treatment of patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment with an anthracycline significantly cut the incidence of incident cardiac dysfunction by about two-thirds during 12 months of treatment, in a multicenter, randomized trial with 300 enrolled patients.
“These data support the use of atorvastatin among patients with lymphoma being treated with anthracyclines where prevention of cardiac systolic dysfunction is important,” concluded Tomas G. Neilan, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
He highlighted that an important difference between the new study, STOP-CA, and a major prior study with a neutral effect published in 2022, was that STOP-CA “was powered for a major change” in cardiac function as the study’s primary outcome, a decline from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 10% that also reduced ejection fraction to less than 55%.
“We can consider these medications [atorvastatin] for patients at higher risk for cardiac toxicity from anthracyclines, such as patients who receive a higher dose of an anthracycline, older patients, people with obesity, and women, commented Anita Deswal, MD, professor and chair of the department of cardiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who was not involved with the study.
A basis for an ‘important discussion’ with patients
“For patients receiving higher doses of anthracyclines, the STOP-CA trial says that whether to start a statin for cardiac protection is now an important discussion” for these patients to have with their treating clinicians. ”That was not the case before today,” commented Ronald M. Witteles, MD, a cardiologist and professor who specializes in cardio-oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“For a patient being treated for lymphoma or for another cancer and treated with equal or higher anthracycline doses, such as patients with a sarcoma, this trial’s results at the very least warrant a discussion between physicians and patients to make the decision,” Dr. Witteles, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. But he also cautioned that “whether an individual patient should take a statin in this scenario is still not a no-brainer. While the trial was positive, it was for an imaging rather than for a clinical endpoint.”
Experts noted that a similar study with the clinical endpoint of heart failure would require both many more randomized patients as well as much longer follow-up. STOP-CA was not powered for this endpoint. During its 12-month duration, a total of 11 patients developed heart failure, with no between group difference.
STOP-CA enrolled adults with lymphoma (Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin) and scheduled to undergo anthracycline treatment at eight U.S. centers and one in Canada, and excluded patients already on statin treatment or those for whom a statin was already indicated. Of the 300 enrolled patients, 286 had 12-month follow-up. Randomization assigned patients to receive either 40 mg daily of atorvastatin or placebo.
Their cumulative, median anthracycline dose was 300 mg/m2, which is typical for treating lymphoma, but higher than the typical dose use for patients with breast cancer. At baseline, average LVEF was 63%, and after 12 months this had declined to 59%. Forty-six of the 286 patients assessed after 12 months fulfilled the primary outcome of at least a 10–percentage point reduction from baseline in their LVEF and a decline in LVEF to less than 55%. Researchers used cardiac MR to assess LVEF at baseline, and in most patients at follow-up, but a minority of patients had their follow-up assessments by echocardiography because of logistical issues. Greater than 90% of patients were adherent to their assigned regimen.
Tripled incidence of cardiac dysfunction in placebo patients
The incidence of this outcome was 9% among the patients who received atorvastatin, and 22% among those on placebo, a significant difference. The calculated odds of the primary outcome was 2.9-fold more likely among the patients treated with placebo, compared with those who received atorvastatin, also a significant difference.
The study’s secondary outcome was patients who had at least a 5% drop from baseline in their LVEF and with a LVEF of less than 55% after 12 months. This outcome occurred in 13% of patients treated with atorvastatin and in 29% of those who received placebo, a significant difference.
The atorvastatin and placebo arms showed no significant differences in adverse events during the study, with roughly similar incidence rates for muscle pain, elevated liver enzymes, and renal failure. None of the enrolled patients developed myositis.
Atorvastatin treatment also produced an expected average 37% decline from baseline in levels of LDL cholesterol.
“This was a well-designed and important trial,” said Dr. Witteles. “Anthracyclines remain a mainstay of cancer therapies for a number of malignancies, such as lymphoma and sarcoma, and the cardiac side effects of development of cardiac dysfunction are unequivocally real.”
The importance of a clinically meaningful effect
The results especially contrast with the findings from the PREVENT study, published in 2022, which compared a daily, 40-mg atorvastatin treatment with placebo in 279 randomized patients with breast cancer and treated for 24 months. However, patients in PREVENT had a cumulative, median anthracycline dose of 240 mg/m2, and the study’s primary outcome was the average change from baseline in LVEF after 24 months of treatment, which was a reduction of 0.08 percentage points in the placebo arm, a nonsignificant difference.
In STOP-CA, the average change in LVEF from baseline was a 1–percentage point reduction in the placebo arm, compared with the atorvastatin-treated patients, a difference that was statistically significant, but “not clinically significant,” said Dr. Neilan, director of the cardio-oncology program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He cited the good fortune of the STOP-CA investigators when they received a recommendation from reviewers early on to design their study to track a clinically meaningful change in LVEF rather than just looking at the average overall change.
Dr. Deswal also noted that it is unlikely that future studies will examine the efficacy of a statin for preventing LVEF in patients across the range of cancers that are eligible for anthracycline treatment. As a result, she predicted that “we may have to extrapolate” the results from STOP-CA to patients with other cancer types.
STOP-CA received no commercial funding. Dr. Neilan has been a consultant for and received fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRC Oncology, Genentech, Roche, and Sanofi, and has received grant funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squib. Dr. Deswal and Dr. Witteles had no relevant disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – Atorvastatin treatment of patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment with an anthracycline significantly cut the incidence of incident cardiac dysfunction by about two-thirds during 12 months of treatment, in a multicenter, randomized trial with 300 enrolled patients.
“These data support the use of atorvastatin among patients with lymphoma being treated with anthracyclines where prevention of cardiac systolic dysfunction is important,” concluded Tomas G. Neilan, MD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
He highlighted that an important difference between the new study, STOP-CA, and a major prior study with a neutral effect published in 2022, was that STOP-CA “was powered for a major change” in cardiac function as the study’s primary outcome, a decline from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 10% that also reduced ejection fraction to less than 55%.
“We can consider these medications [atorvastatin] for patients at higher risk for cardiac toxicity from anthracyclines, such as patients who receive a higher dose of an anthracycline, older patients, people with obesity, and women, commented Anita Deswal, MD, professor and chair of the department of cardiology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who was not involved with the study.
A basis for an ‘important discussion’ with patients
“For patients receiving higher doses of anthracyclines, the STOP-CA trial says that whether to start a statin for cardiac protection is now an important discussion” for these patients to have with their treating clinicians. ”That was not the case before today,” commented Ronald M. Witteles, MD, a cardiologist and professor who specializes in cardio-oncology at Stanford (Calif.) University.
“For a patient being treated for lymphoma or for another cancer and treated with equal or higher anthracycline doses, such as patients with a sarcoma, this trial’s results at the very least warrant a discussion between physicians and patients to make the decision,” Dr. Witteles, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. But he also cautioned that “whether an individual patient should take a statin in this scenario is still not a no-brainer. While the trial was positive, it was for an imaging rather than for a clinical endpoint.”
Experts noted that a similar study with the clinical endpoint of heart failure would require both many more randomized patients as well as much longer follow-up. STOP-CA was not powered for this endpoint. During its 12-month duration, a total of 11 patients developed heart failure, with no between group difference.
STOP-CA enrolled adults with lymphoma (Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin) and scheduled to undergo anthracycline treatment at eight U.S. centers and one in Canada, and excluded patients already on statin treatment or those for whom a statin was already indicated. Of the 300 enrolled patients, 286 had 12-month follow-up. Randomization assigned patients to receive either 40 mg daily of atorvastatin or placebo.
Their cumulative, median anthracycline dose was 300 mg/m2, which is typical for treating lymphoma, but higher than the typical dose use for patients with breast cancer. At baseline, average LVEF was 63%, and after 12 months this had declined to 59%. Forty-six of the 286 patients assessed after 12 months fulfilled the primary outcome of at least a 10–percentage point reduction from baseline in their LVEF and a decline in LVEF to less than 55%. Researchers used cardiac MR to assess LVEF at baseline, and in most patients at follow-up, but a minority of patients had their follow-up assessments by echocardiography because of logistical issues. Greater than 90% of patients were adherent to their assigned regimen.
Tripled incidence of cardiac dysfunction in placebo patients
The incidence of this outcome was 9% among the patients who received atorvastatin, and 22% among those on placebo, a significant difference. The calculated odds of the primary outcome was 2.9-fold more likely among the patients treated with placebo, compared with those who received atorvastatin, also a significant difference.
The study’s secondary outcome was patients who had at least a 5% drop from baseline in their LVEF and with a LVEF of less than 55% after 12 months. This outcome occurred in 13% of patients treated with atorvastatin and in 29% of those who received placebo, a significant difference.
The atorvastatin and placebo arms showed no significant differences in adverse events during the study, with roughly similar incidence rates for muscle pain, elevated liver enzymes, and renal failure. None of the enrolled patients developed myositis.
Atorvastatin treatment also produced an expected average 37% decline from baseline in levels of LDL cholesterol.
“This was a well-designed and important trial,” said Dr. Witteles. “Anthracyclines remain a mainstay of cancer therapies for a number of malignancies, such as lymphoma and sarcoma, and the cardiac side effects of development of cardiac dysfunction are unequivocally real.”
The importance of a clinically meaningful effect
The results especially contrast with the findings from the PREVENT study, published in 2022, which compared a daily, 40-mg atorvastatin treatment with placebo in 279 randomized patients with breast cancer and treated for 24 months. However, patients in PREVENT had a cumulative, median anthracycline dose of 240 mg/m2, and the study’s primary outcome was the average change from baseline in LVEF after 24 months of treatment, which was a reduction of 0.08 percentage points in the placebo arm, a nonsignificant difference.
In STOP-CA, the average change in LVEF from baseline was a 1–percentage point reduction in the placebo arm, compared with the atorvastatin-treated patients, a difference that was statistically significant, but “not clinically significant,” said Dr. Neilan, director of the cardio-oncology program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He cited the good fortune of the STOP-CA investigators when they received a recommendation from reviewers early on to design their study to track a clinically meaningful change in LVEF rather than just looking at the average overall change.
Dr. Deswal also noted that it is unlikely that future studies will examine the efficacy of a statin for preventing LVEF in patients across the range of cancers that are eligible for anthracycline treatment. As a result, she predicted that “we may have to extrapolate” the results from STOP-CA to patients with other cancer types.
STOP-CA received no commercial funding. Dr. Neilan has been a consultant for and received fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CRC Oncology, Genentech, Roche, and Sanofi, and has received grant funding from AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squib. Dr. Deswal and Dr. Witteles had no relevant disclosures.
AT ACC 2023
Bempedoic acid cuts CV events in statin-intolerant patients: CLEAR Outcomes
A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.
The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.
The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.
“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.
Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.
Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.
Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.
He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
CLEAR Outcomes
The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.
The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).
The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.
The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).
Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.
Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.
Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.
Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).
Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.
In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.
“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.
“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
‘Compelling findings’
Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.
She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.
She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.”
Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis.
She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”
In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”
He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.
Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown.
On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”
“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”
In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.
But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”
In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.
“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”
The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.
The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.
The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.
“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.
Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.
Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.
Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.
He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
CLEAR Outcomes
The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.
The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).
The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.
The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).
Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.
Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.
Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.
Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).
Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.
In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.
“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.
“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
‘Compelling findings’
Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.
She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.
She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.”
Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis.
She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”
In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”
He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.
Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown.
On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”
“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”
In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.
But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”
In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.
“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”
The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new approach to lowering cholesterol with the use of bempedoic acid (Nexletol, Esperion) brought about a significant reduction in cardiovascular events in patients intolerant to statins in the large phase 3, placebo-controlled CLEAR Outcomes trial.
The drug lowered LDL cholesterol by 21% in the study and reduced the composite primary endpoint, including cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization, by 13%; MI was reduced by 23% and coronary revascularization, by 19%.
The drug was also well tolerated in the mixed population of primary and secondary prevention patients unable or unwilling to take statins.
“These findings establish bempedoic acid as an effective approach to reduce major cardiovascular events in statin-intolerant patients,” study chair, Steven E. Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic concluded.
Dr. Nissen presented the CLEAR Outcomes trial at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. Top-line results were previously reported in December 2022.
Dr. Nissen pointed out that, while in the current study bempedoic acid was studied as monotherapy, he believes the drug will mainly be used in clinical practice in combination with ezetimibe, a combination shown to reduce LDL by 38%. “I think this is how it will be used in clinical practice. So, we can get an almost 40% LDL reduction – that’s about the same as 40 mg simvastatin or 20 mg atorvastatin – without giving a statin. And I think that’s where I see the potential of this therapy,” he said.
Dr. Nissen described statin intolerance as “a vexing problem” that prevents many patients from achieving LDL cholesterol levels associated with cardiovascular benefits.
He explained that bempedoic acid, an adenosine triphosphate citrate lyase inhibitor, inhibits hepatic cholesterol synthesis upstream of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the enzyme inhibited by statins. Bempedoic acid is a prodrug activated in the liver, but not in peripheral tissues, resulting in a low incidence of muscle-related adverse events. Although bempedoic acid is approved for lowering LDL cholesterol, this is the first trial to assess its effects on cardiovascular outcomes.
CLEAR Outcomes
The CLEAR Outcomes trial included 13,970 patients (48% women) from 32 countries who were unable or unwilling to take statins owing to unacceptable adverse effects and who had, or were at high risk for, cardiovascular disease. They were randomly assigned to oral bempedoic acid, 180 mg daily, or placebo.
The mean LDL cholesterol level at baseline was 139 mg/dL in both groups, and after 6 months, the reduction in the level was greater with bempedoic acid than with placebo by 29.2 mg/dL (a 21.1% reduction).
The drug was also associated with a 22% reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
After a median duration of follow-up of 40.6 months, the incidence of a primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization) was significantly lower (by 13%) with bempedoic acid than with placebo (11.7% vs. 13.3%; hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .004).
The absolute risk reduction was 1.6 percentage points, and the number needed to treat for 40 months to prevent one event was 63.
The secondary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death/stroke/MI was reduced by 15% (8.2% vs. 9.5%; HR, 0.85; P = .006). Fatal or nonfatal MI was reduced by 23% (3.7% vs. 4.8%; HR, 0.77; P = .002), and coronary revascularization was reduced by 19% (6.2% vs. 7.6%; HR, 0.81; P = .001).
Bempedoic acid had no significant effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke, death from cardiovascular causes, and death from any cause.
Subgroup analysis showed similar results across all groups and no difference in treatment effect between men and women.
Adverse events were reported by 25% of patients in both groups, with adverse events leading to discontinuation reported by 10.8% of the bempedoic acid group and 10.4% of the placebo group.
Muscle disorders were reported in 15.0% of the bempedoic acid group versus 15.4% of the placebo group. And there was also no difference in new cases of diabetes (16.1% vs. 17.1%).
Bempedoic acid was associated with small increases in the incidence of gout (3.1% vs. 2.1%) and cholelithiasis (2.2% vs. 1.2%), and also small increases in serum creatinine, uric acid, and hepatic enzyme levels.
In the NEJM article, the authors pointed out that the concept of statin intolerance remains controversial. Some recent studies suggested that reported adverse effects represent an anticipation of harm, often described as the “nocebo” effect.
“Whether real or perceived, statin intolerance remains a vexing clinical problem that can prevent patients who are guideline eligible for statin treatment from reaching LDL cholesterol levels associated with clinical benefits. Accordingly, alternative nonstatin therapies are needed to manage the LDL cholesterol level in these patients,” they wrote.
“Management of patients unable or unwilling to take statins represents a challenging and frustrating clinical issue. Regardless whether this problem represents the ‘nocebo’ effect or actual intolerance, these high-risk patients need effective alternative therapies,” Dr. Nissen concluded. “The CLEAR Outcomes trial provides a sound rationale for use of bempedoic acid to reduce major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients intolerant to statins.”
‘Compelling findings’
Discussing the trial at the ACC late-breaking clinical trial session, Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that this is the largest trial to date in statin-intolerant patients.
She pointed out that although the issue of statin intolerance remains controversial, adherence to statins is often not good, so this is an important patient population to study.
She said it was “quite remarkable” that 48% of the study were women, adding: “There is still much that we need to understand about why women appear to be less willing or able to tolerate statin therapy.”
Dr. O’Donoghue concluded that the study showed “compelling findings,” and the event reduction was in line with what would be expected from the LDL cholesterol reduction, further supporting the LDL cholesterol hypothesis.
She added: “Bempedoic acid is an important addition to our arsenal of nonstatin LDL-lowering therapies. And while it was overall well tolerated, it did not get a complete free pass, as there were some modest safety concerns.”
In an editorial accompanying the NEJM publication, John Alexander, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C., wrote: “The compelling results of the CLEAR Outcomes trial will and should increase the use of bempedoic acid in patients with established atherosclerotic vascular disease and in those at high risk for vascular disease who are unable or unwilling to take statins.”
He warned, however, that it is premature to consider bempedoic acid as an alternative to statins. “Given the overwhelming evidence of the vascular benefits of statins, clinicians should continue their efforts to prescribe them at the maximum tolerated doses for appropriate patients, including those who may have discontinued statins because of presumed side effects.”.
Dr. Alexander also pointed out that although bempedoic acid also reduces the LDL cholesterol level in patients taking statins, the clinical benefits of bempedoic acid added to standard statin therapy are unknown.
On the observation that bempedoic acid had no observed effect on mortality, he noted that “Many individual trials of statins have also not shown an effect of the agent on mortality; it was only through the meta-analysis of multiple clinical trials that the effects of statins on mortality became clear.”
“Bempedoic acid has now entered the list of evidence-based alternatives to statins for primary and secondary prevention in patients at high cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Alexander concluded. “The benefits of bempedoic acid are now clearer, and it is now our responsibility to translate this information into better primary and secondary prevention for more at-risk patients, who will, as a result, benefit from fewer cardiovascular events.”
In a second editorial, John F. Keaney Jr., MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the lack of a clear association between bempedoic acid and muscle disorders, new-onset diabetes, or worsening hyperglycemia is “welcome news” for statin-intolerant patients.
But he cautioned that “these data must be interpreted cautiously, because bempedoic acid, when combined with a statin, appears to enhance the occurrence of muscle symptoms. Moreover, bempedoic acid has its own reported side effects, including tendon rupture, increased uric acid levels, gout, and reduced glomerular filtration rate, which are not seen with statin use.”
In terms of drug interactions, Dr. Keaney noted that bempedoic acid can increase the circulating levels of simvastatin and pravastatin, so it should not be used in patients who are receiving these agents at doses above 20 mg and 40 mg, respectively. Similarly, bempedoic acid should not be used with fibrates other than fenofibrate because of concerns regarding cholelithiasis.
“Available data clearly indicate that bempedoic acid can be used as an adjunct to statin and nonstatin therapies (except as noted above) to produce an additional 16%-26% reduction in the LDL cholesterol level,” he added. “However, it is not yet clear to what extent adjunctive bempedoic acid will further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.”
The CLEAR Outcomes trial was supported by Esperion Therapeutics. Dr. Nissen reported receiving grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Novartis, and Silence Pharmaceuticals and consultancies with Amgen and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
Transcatheter tricuspid valve repair effective and safe for regurgitation
NEW ORLEANS – In the first pivotal randomized, controlled trial of a transcatheter device for the repair of severe tricuspid regurgitation, a large reduction in valve dysfunction was associated with substantial improvement in quality of life (QOL) persisting out of 1 year of follow-up, according to results of the TRILUMINATE trial.
Based on the low procedural risks of the repair, the principal investigator, Paul Sorajja, MD, called the results “very clinically meaningful” as he presented the results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
Conducted at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and North America, TRILUMINATE evaluated a transcatheter end-to-end (TEER) repair performed with the TriClip G4 Delivery System (Abbott). The study included two cohorts, both of which will be followed for 5 years. One included patients with very severe tricuspid regurgitation enrolled in a single arm. Data on this cohort is expected later in 2023.
In the randomized portion of the study, 350 patients enrolled with severe tricuspid regurgitation underwent TEER with a clipping device and then were followed on the guideline-directed therapy (GDMT) for heart failure they were receiving at baseline. The control group was managed on GDMT alone.
The primary composite endpoint at 1 year was a composite of death from any cause and/or tricuspid valve surgery, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ).
Benefit driven by quality of life
For the primary endpoint, the win ratio, a statistical calculation of those who did relative to those who did not benefit, was 1.48, signifying a 48% advantage (P = .02). This was driven almost entirely by the KCCQ endpoint. There was no significant difference death and/or tricuspid valve surgery, which occurred in about 10% of both groups (P = .75) or heart failure hospitalization, which was occurred in slightly more patients randomized to repair (14.9% vs. 12.1%; P = .41).
For KCCQ, the mean increase at 1 year was 12.3 points in the repair group versus 0.6 points (P < .001) in the control group. With an increase of 5-10 points typically considered to be clinically meaningful, the advantage of repair over GDMT at the threshold of 15 points or greater was highly statistically significant (49.7% vs. 26.4%; P < .0001).
This advantage was attributed to control of regurgitation. The proportion achieving moderate or less regurgitation sustained at 1 year was 87% in the repair group versus 4.8% in the GDMT group (P < .0001).
When assessed independent of treatment, KCCQ benefits at 1 year increased in a stepwise fashion as severity of regurgitation was reduced, climbing from 2 points if there was no improvement to 6 points with one grade in improvement and then to 18 points with at least a two-grade improvement.
For regurgitation, “the repair was extremely effective,” said Dr. Sorajja of Allina Health Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis. He added that the degree of regurgitation control in the TRILUMINATE trial “is the highest ever reported.” With previous trials with other transcatheter devices in development, the improvement so far has been on the order of 70%-80%.
For enrollment in TRILUMINATE, patients were required to have at least an intermediate risk of morbidity or mortality from tricuspid valve surgery. Exclusion criteria included a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 20% and severe pulmonary hypertension.
More than 70% of patients had the highest (torrential) or second highest (massive) category of regurgitation on a five-level scale by echocardiography. Almost all the remaining were at the third level (severe).
Of those enrolled, the average age was roughly 78 years. About 55% were women. Nearly 60% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and most had significant comorbidities, including hypertension (> 80%), atrial fibrillation (about 90%), and renal disease (35%). Patients with diabetes (16%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), and liver disease (7.5%) were represented in lower numbers.
Surgery is not necessarily an option
All enrolled patients were considered to be at intermediate or greater risk for mortality with surgical replacement of the tricuspid valve, but Dr. Sorajja pointed out that surgery, which involves valve replacement, is not necessarily an alternative to valve repair. Even in fit patients, the high morbidity, mortality, and extended hospital stay associated with surgical valve replacement makes this procedure unattractive.
In this trial, most patients who underwent the transcatheter procedure were discharged within a day. The safety was excellent, Dr. Sorajja said. Only three patients (1.7%) had a major adverse event. This included two cases of new-onset renal failure and one cardiovascular death. There were no cases of endocarditis requiring surgery or any other type of nonelective cardiovascular surgery, including for any device-related issue.
In the sick population enrolled, Dr. Sorajja characterized the number of adverse events over 1 year as “very low.”
These results are important, according to Kendra Grubb, MD, surgical director of the Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta. While she expressed surprise that there was no signal of benefit on hard endpoints at 1 year, she emphasized that “these patients feel terrible,” and they are frustrating to manage because surgery is often contraindicated or impractical.
“Finally, we have something for this group,” she said, noting that the mortality from valve replacement surgery even among patients who are fit enough for surgery to be considered is about 10%.
Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, was more circumspect. He agreed that the improvement in QOL was encouraging, but cautioned that QOL is a particularly soft outcome in a nonrandomized trial in which patients may feel better just knowing that there regurgitation has been controlled. He found the lack of benefit on hard outcomes not just surprising but “disappointing.”
Still, he agreed the improvement in QOL is potentially meaningful for a procedure that appears to be relatively safe.
Dr. Sorajja reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax. 4C Medical, Gore Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, Vdyne, xDot, and Abbott Structural, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Grubb reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opsens, Phillips, ReCor, Regeneron, and Zoll.
NEW ORLEANS – In the first pivotal randomized, controlled trial of a transcatheter device for the repair of severe tricuspid regurgitation, a large reduction in valve dysfunction was associated with substantial improvement in quality of life (QOL) persisting out of 1 year of follow-up, according to results of the TRILUMINATE trial.
Based on the low procedural risks of the repair, the principal investigator, Paul Sorajja, MD, called the results “very clinically meaningful” as he presented the results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
Conducted at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and North America, TRILUMINATE evaluated a transcatheter end-to-end (TEER) repair performed with the TriClip G4 Delivery System (Abbott). The study included two cohorts, both of which will be followed for 5 years. One included patients with very severe tricuspid regurgitation enrolled in a single arm. Data on this cohort is expected later in 2023.
In the randomized portion of the study, 350 patients enrolled with severe tricuspid regurgitation underwent TEER with a clipping device and then were followed on the guideline-directed therapy (GDMT) for heart failure they were receiving at baseline. The control group was managed on GDMT alone.
The primary composite endpoint at 1 year was a composite of death from any cause and/or tricuspid valve surgery, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ).
Benefit driven by quality of life
For the primary endpoint, the win ratio, a statistical calculation of those who did relative to those who did not benefit, was 1.48, signifying a 48% advantage (P = .02). This was driven almost entirely by the KCCQ endpoint. There was no significant difference death and/or tricuspid valve surgery, which occurred in about 10% of both groups (P = .75) or heart failure hospitalization, which was occurred in slightly more patients randomized to repair (14.9% vs. 12.1%; P = .41).
For KCCQ, the mean increase at 1 year was 12.3 points in the repair group versus 0.6 points (P < .001) in the control group. With an increase of 5-10 points typically considered to be clinically meaningful, the advantage of repair over GDMT at the threshold of 15 points or greater was highly statistically significant (49.7% vs. 26.4%; P < .0001).
This advantage was attributed to control of regurgitation. The proportion achieving moderate or less regurgitation sustained at 1 year was 87% in the repair group versus 4.8% in the GDMT group (P < .0001).
When assessed independent of treatment, KCCQ benefits at 1 year increased in a stepwise fashion as severity of regurgitation was reduced, climbing from 2 points if there was no improvement to 6 points with one grade in improvement and then to 18 points with at least a two-grade improvement.
For regurgitation, “the repair was extremely effective,” said Dr. Sorajja of Allina Health Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis. He added that the degree of regurgitation control in the TRILUMINATE trial “is the highest ever reported.” With previous trials with other transcatheter devices in development, the improvement so far has been on the order of 70%-80%.
For enrollment in TRILUMINATE, patients were required to have at least an intermediate risk of morbidity or mortality from tricuspid valve surgery. Exclusion criteria included a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 20% and severe pulmonary hypertension.
More than 70% of patients had the highest (torrential) or second highest (massive) category of regurgitation on a five-level scale by echocardiography. Almost all the remaining were at the third level (severe).
Of those enrolled, the average age was roughly 78 years. About 55% were women. Nearly 60% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and most had significant comorbidities, including hypertension (> 80%), atrial fibrillation (about 90%), and renal disease (35%). Patients with diabetes (16%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), and liver disease (7.5%) were represented in lower numbers.
Surgery is not necessarily an option
All enrolled patients were considered to be at intermediate or greater risk for mortality with surgical replacement of the tricuspid valve, but Dr. Sorajja pointed out that surgery, which involves valve replacement, is not necessarily an alternative to valve repair. Even in fit patients, the high morbidity, mortality, and extended hospital stay associated with surgical valve replacement makes this procedure unattractive.
In this trial, most patients who underwent the transcatheter procedure were discharged within a day. The safety was excellent, Dr. Sorajja said. Only three patients (1.7%) had a major adverse event. This included two cases of new-onset renal failure and one cardiovascular death. There were no cases of endocarditis requiring surgery or any other type of nonelective cardiovascular surgery, including for any device-related issue.
In the sick population enrolled, Dr. Sorajja characterized the number of adverse events over 1 year as “very low.”
These results are important, according to Kendra Grubb, MD, surgical director of the Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta. While she expressed surprise that there was no signal of benefit on hard endpoints at 1 year, she emphasized that “these patients feel terrible,” and they are frustrating to manage because surgery is often contraindicated or impractical.
“Finally, we have something for this group,” she said, noting that the mortality from valve replacement surgery even among patients who are fit enough for surgery to be considered is about 10%.
Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, was more circumspect. He agreed that the improvement in QOL was encouraging, but cautioned that QOL is a particularly soft outcome in a nonrandomized trial in which patients may feel better just knowing that there regurgitation has been controlled. He found the lack of benefit on hard outcomes not just surprising but “disappointing.”
Still, he agreed the improvement in QOL is potentially meaningful for a procedure that appears to be relatively safe.
Dr. Sorajja reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax. 4C Medical, Gore Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, Vdyne, xDot, and Abbott Structural, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Grubb reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opsens, Phillips, ReCor, Regeneron, and Zoll.
NEW ORLEANS – In the first pivotal randomized, controlled trial of a transcatheter device for the repair of severe tricuspid regurgitation, a large reduction in valve dysfunction was associated with substantial improvement in quality of life (QOL) persisting out of 1 year of follow-up, according to results of the TRILUMINATE trial.
Based on the low procedural risks of the repair, the principal investigator, Paul Sorajja, MD, called the results “very clinically meaningful” as he presented the results at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.
Conducted at 65 centers in the United States, Canada, and North America, TRILUMINATE evaluated a transcatheter end-to-end (TEER) repair performed with the TriClip G4 Delivery System (Abbott). The study included two cohorts, both of which will be followed for 5 years. One included patients with very severe tricuspid regurgitation enrolled in a single arm. Data on this cohort is expected later in 2023.
In the randomized portion of the study, 350 patients enrolled with severe tricuspid regurgitation underwent TEER with a clipping device and then were followed on the guideline-directed therapy (GDMT) for heart failure they were receiving at baseline. The control group was managed on GDMT alone.
The primary composite endpoint at 1 year was a composite of death from any cause and/or tricuspid valve surgery, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life as measured with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ).
Benefit driven by quality of life
For the primary endpoint, the win ratio, a statistical calculation of those who did relative to those who did not benefit, was 1.48, signifying a 48% advantage (P = .02). This was driven almost entirely by the KCCQ endpoint. There was no significant difference death and/or tricuspid valve surgery, which occurred in about 10% of both groups (P = .75) or heart failure hospitalization, which was occurred in slightly more patients randomized to repair (14.9% vs. 12.1%; P = .41).
For KCCQ, the mean increase at 1 year was 12.3 points in the repair group versus 0.6 points (P < .001) in the control group. With an increase of 5-10 points typically considered to be clinically meaningful, the advantage of repair over GDMT at the threshold of 15 points or greater was highly statistically significant (49.7% vs. 26.4%; P < .0001).
This advantage was attributed to control of regurgitation. The proportion achieving moderate or less regurgitation sustained at 1 year was 87% in the repair group versus 4.8% in the GDMT group (P < .0001).
When assessed independent of treatment, KCCQ benefits at 1 year increased in a stepwise fashion as severity of regurgitation was reduced, climbing from 2 points if there was no improvement to 6 points with one grade in improvement and then to 18 points with at least a two-grade improvement.
For regurgitation, “the repair was extremely effective,” said Dr. Sorajja of Allina Health Minneapolis Heart Institute at Abbott Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis. He added that the degree of regurgitation control in the TRILUMINATE trial “is the highest ever reported.” With previous trials with other transcatheter devices in development, the improvement so far has been on the order of 70%-80%.
For enrollment in TRILUMINATE, patients were required to have at least an intermediate risk of morbidity or mortality from tricuspid valve surgery. Exclusion criteria included a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 20% and severe pulmonary hypertension.
More than 70% of patients had the highest (torrential) or second highest (massive) category of regurgitation on a five-level scale by echocardiography. Almost all the remaining were at the third level (severe).
Of those enrolled, the average age was roughly 78 years. About 55% were women. Nearly 60% were in New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure and most had significant comorbidities, including hypertension (> 80%), atrial fibrillation (about 90%), and renal disease (35%). Patients with diabetes (16%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10%), and liver disease (7.5%) were represented in lower numbers.
Surgery is not necessarily an option
All enrolled patients were considered to be at intermediate or greater risk for mortality with surgical replacement of the tricuspid valve, but Dr. Sorajja pointed out that surgery, which involves valve replacement, is not necessarily an alternative to valve repair. Even in fit patients, the high morbidity, mortality, and extended hospital stay associated with surgical valve replacement makes this procedure unattractive.
In this trial, most patients who underwent the transcatheter procedure were discharged within a day. The safety was excellent, Dr. Sorajja said. Only three patients (1.7%) had a major adverse event. This included two cases of new-onset renal failure and one cardiovascular death. There were no cases of endocarditis requiring surgery or any other type of nonelective cardiovascular surgery, including for any device-related issue.
In the sick population enrolled, Dr. Sorajja characterized the number of adverse events over 1 year as “very low.”
These results are important, according to Kendra Grubb, MD, surgical director of the Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University, Atlanta. While she expressed surprise that there was no signal of benefit on hard endpoints at 1 year, she emphasized that “these patients feel terrible,” and they are frustrating to manage because surgery is often contraindicated or impractical.
“Finally, we have something for this group,” she said, noting that the mortality from valve replacement surgery even among patients who are fit enough for surgery to be considered is about 10%.
Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories at Columbia University, New York, was more circumspect. He agreed that the improvement in QOL was encouraging, but cautioned that QOL is a particularly soft outcome in a nonrandomized trial in which patients may feel better just knowing that there regurgitation has been controlled. He found the lack of benefit on hard outcomes not just surprising but “disappointing.”
Still, he agreed the improvement in QOL is potentially meaningful for a procedure that appears to be relatively safe.
Dr. Sorajja reported financial relationships with Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Foldax. 4C Medical, Gore Medtronic, Phillips, Siemens, Shifamed, Vdyne, xDot, and Abbott Structural, which provided funding for this trial. Dr. Grubb reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Ancora Heart, Bioventrix, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, 4C Medical, JenaValve, and Medtronic. Dr. Kirtane reported financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Chiesi, Medtronic, Opsens, Phillips, ReCor, Regeneron, and Zoll.
AT ACC 2023
Beware risk of sedatives for respiratory patients
Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.
Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.
Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.
Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.
“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.
Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.
Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.
The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.
Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.
Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.
Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.
“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.
Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.
Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.
The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.
Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.
Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.
Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.
“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.
Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.
Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.
The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New influx of Humira biosimilars may not drive immediate change
Gastroenterologists in 2023 will have more tools in their arsenal to treat patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. As many as 8-10 adalimumab biosimilars are anticipated to come on the market this year, giving mainstay drug Humira some vigorous competition.
Three scenarios will drive adalimumab biosimilar initiation: Insurance preference for the initial treatment of a newly diagnosed condition, a change in a patient’s insurance plan, or an insurance-mandated switch, said Edward C. Oldfield IV, MD, assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School’s division of gastroenterology in Norfolk.
“Outside of these scenarios, I would encourage patients to remain on their current biologic so long as cost and accessibility remain stable,” said Dr. Oldfield.
Many factors will contribute to the success of biosimilars. Will physicians be prescribing them? How are biosimilars placed on formularies and will they be given preferred status? How will manufacturers price their biosimilars? “We have to wait and see to get the answers to these questions,” said Steven Newmark, JD, MPA, chief legal officer and director of policy, Global Healthy Living Foundation/CreakyJoints, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in New York.
Prescribing biosimilars is no different than prescribing originator biologics, so providers should know how to use them, said Mr. Newmark. “Most important will be the availability of patient-friendly resources that providers can share with their patients to provide education about and confidence in using biosimilars,” he added.
Overall, biosimilars are a good thing, said Dr. Oldfield. “In the long run they should bring down costs and increase access to medications for our patients.”
Others are skeptical that the adalimumab biosimilars will save patients much money.
Biosimilar laws were created to lower costs. However, if a patient with insurance pays only $5 a month out of pocket for Humira – a drug that normally costs $7,000 without coverage – it’s unlikely they would want to switch unless there’s comparable savings from the biosimilar, said Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center and professor of medicine at Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Like generics, Humira biosimilars may face some initial backlash, said Dr. Hanauer.
2023 broadens scope of adalimumab treatments
The American Gastroenterological Association describes a biosimilar as something that’s “highly similar to, but not an exact copy of, a biologic reference product already approved” by the Food and Drug Administration. Congress under the 2010 Affordable Care Act created a special, abbreviated pathway to approval for biosimilars.
AbbVie’s Humira, the global revenue for which exceeded $20 billion in 2021, has long dominated the U.S. market on injectable treatments for autoimmune diseases. The popular drug faces some competition in 2023, however, following a series of legal settlements that allowed AbbVie competitors to release their own adalimumab biosimilars.
“So far, we haven’t seen biosimilars live up to their potential in the U.S. in the inflammatory space,” said Mr. Newmark. This may change, however. Previously, biosimilars have required infusion, which demanded more time, commitment, and travel from patients. “The new set of forthcoming Humira biosimilars are injectables, an administration method preferred by patients,” he said.
The FDA will approve a biosimilar if it determines that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product, and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological and reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product.
The agency to date has approved 8 adalimumab biosimilars. These include: Idacio (adalimumab-aacf, Fresenius Kabi); Amjevita (adalimumab-atto, Amgen); Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd, Organon); Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm, Boehringer Ingelheim); Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh from Coherus BioSciences); Hulio (adalimumab-fkjp; Mylan/Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics); Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz, Sandoz), and Abrilada (adalimumab-afzb, Pfizer).
“While FDA doesn’t formally track when products come to market, we know based on published reports that application holders for many of the currently FDA-approved biosimilars plan to market this year, starting with Amjevita being the first adalimumab biosimilar launched” in January, said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars at the agency.
At press time, two other companies (Celltrion and Alvotech/Teva) were awaiting FDA approval for their adalimumab biosimilar drugs.
Among the eight approved drugs, Cyltezo is the only one that has a designation for interchangeability with Humira.
An interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted at the pharmacy without the intervention of the prescriber – much like generics are substituted, depending on state laws, said Dr. Yim. “However, in terms of safety and effectiveness, FDA’s standards for approval mean that biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar products can be used in place of the reference product they were compared to.”
FDA-approved biosimilars undergo a rigorous evaluation for safety, effectiveness, and quality for their approved conditions of use, she continued. “Therefore, patients and health care providers can rely on a biosimilar to be as safe and effective for its approved uses as the original biological product.”
Remicade as a yard stick
Gastroenterologists dealt with this situation once before, when Remicade (infliximab) biosimilars came on the market in 2016, noted Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.
Remicade and Humira are both tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with the same mechanism of action and many of the same indications. “We already had that experience with Remicade and biosimilar switch 2 or 3 years ago. Now we’re talking about Humira,” said Dr. Regueiro.
Most GI doctors have prescribed one of the more common infliximab biosimilars (Inflectra or Renflexis), noted Dr. Oldfield.
Cardinal Health, which recently surveyed 300 gastroenterologists, rheumatologists, and dermatologists about adalimumab biosimilars, found that gastroenterologists had the highest comfort level in prescribing them. Their top concern, however, was changing a patient from adalimumab to an adalimumab biosimilar.
For most patients, Dr. Oldfield sees the Humira reference biologic and biosimilar as equivalent.
However, he said he would change a patient’s drug only if there were a good reason or if his hand was forced by insurance. He would not make the change for a patient who recently began induction with the reference biologic or a patient with highly active clinical disease.
“While there is limited data to support this, I would also have some qualms about changing a patient from reference biologic to a biosimilar if they previously had immune-mediated pharmacokinetic failure due to antibody development with a biologic and were currently doing well on their new biologic,” he said.
Those with a new ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s diagnosis who are initiating a biologic for the first time might consider a biosimilar. If a patient is transitioning from a reference biologic to a biosimilar, “I would want to make that change during a time of stable remission and with the recognition that the switch is not a temporary switch, but a long-term switch,” he continued.
A paper that reviewed 23 observational studies of adalimumab and other biosimilars found that switching biosimilars was safe and effective. But if possible, patients should minimize the number of switches until more robust long-term data are available, added Dr. Oldfield.
If a patient is apprehensive about switching to a new therapy, “one may need to be cognizant of the ‘nocebo’ effect in which there is an unexplained or unfavorable therapeutic effect after switching,” he said.
Other gastroenterologists voiced similar reservations about switching. “I won’t use an adalimumab biosimilar unless the patient requests it, the insurance requires it, or there is a cost advantage for the patient such that they prefer it,” said Doug Wolf, MD, an Atlanta gastroenterologist.
“There is no medical treatment advantage to a biosimilar, especially if switching from Humira,” added Dr. Wolf.
Insurance will guide treatment
Once a drug is approved for use by the FDA, that drug will be available in all 50 states. “Different private insurance formularies, as well as state Medicaid formularies, might affect the actual ability of patients to receive such drugs,” said Mr. Newmark.
Patients should consult with their providers and insurance companies to see what therapies are available, he advised.
Dr. Hanauer anticipates some headaches arising for patients and doctors alike when negotiating for a specific drug.
Cyltezo may be the only biosimilar interchangeable with Humira, but the third-party pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) could negotiate for one of the noninterchangeable ones. “On a yearly basis they could switch their preference,” said Dr. Hanauer.
In the Cardinal Health survey, more than 60% of respondents said they would feel comfortable prescribing an adalimumab biosimilar only with an interchangeability designation.
A PBM may offer a patient Cyltezo if it’s cheaper than Humira. If the patient insists on staying on Humira, then they’ll have to pay more for that drug on their payer’s formulary, said Dr. Hanauer. In a worst-case scenario, a physician may have to appeal on a patient’s behalf to get Humira if the insurer offers only the biosimilar.
Taking that step to appeal is a major hassle for the physician, and leads to extra back door costs as well, said Dr. Hanauer.
Humira manufacturer AbbVie, in turn, may offer discounts and rebates to the PBMs to put Humira on their formulary. “That’s the AbbVie negotiating power. It’s not that the cost is going to be that much different. It’s going to be that there are rebates and discounts that are going to make the cost different,” he added.
As a community physician, Dr. Oldfield has specific concerns about accessibility.
The ever-increasing burden of insurance documentation and prior authorization means it can take weeks or months to get these medications approved. “The addition of new biosimilars is a welcome entrance if it can get patients the medications they need when they need it,” he said.
When it comes to prescribing biologics, many physicians rely on ancillary staff for assistance. It’s a team effort to sift through all the paperwork, observed Dr. Oldfield.
“While many community GI practices have specialized staff to deal with prior authorizations, they are still a far cry from the IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] academic centers where there are often pharmacists, nursing specialists, and home-monitoring programs to check in on patients,” he explained.
Landscape on cost is uncertain
At present, little is known about the cost of the biosimilars and impact on future drug pricing, said Dr. Oldfield.
At least for Medicare, Humira biosimilars will be considered Medicare Part D drugs if used for a medically accepted indication, said a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Part D sponsors (pharmacy and therapeutic committees) “will make the determination as to whether Amjevita and other products will be added to their formularies,” said the spokesperson.
Patients never saw a significant cost savings with Remicade biosimilars. “I imagine the same would be true with biosimilars for Humira,” said Dr. Regueiro. Patients may see greater access to these drugs, however, because the insurance plan or the pharmacy plan will make them more readily available, he added.
The hope is that, as biosimilars are introduced, the price of the originator biologic will go down, said Mr. Newmark. “Therefore, we can expect Humira to be offered at a lower price as it faces competition. Where it will sit in comparison to the forthcoming biosimilars will depend on how much biosimilar companies drop their price and how much pressure will be on PBMs and insurers to cover the lowest list price drug,” he said.
AbbVie did not respond to several requests for comment.
Charitable patient assistance programs for biosimilars or biologics can help offset the price of copayments, Mr. Newmark offered.
Ideally, insurers will offer designated biosimilars at a reduced or even no out-of-pocket expense on their formularies. This should lead to a decreased administrative burden for approval with streamlined (or even removal) of prior authorizations for certain medications, said Dr. Oldfield.
Without insurance or medication assistance programs, the cost of biosimilars is prohibitively expensive, he added.
“Biosimilars have higher research, development, and manufacturing costs than what people conventionally think of [for] a generic medication.”
Educating, advising patients
Dr. Oldfield advised that gastroenterologists refer to biologics by the generic name rather than branded name when initiating therapy unless there is a very specific reason not to. “This approach should make the process more streamlined and less subjected to quick denials for brand-only requests as biosimilars start to assume a larger market share,” he said.
Uptake of the Humira biosimilars also will depend on proper education of physicians and patients and their comfort level with the biosimilars, said Dr. Regueiro. Cleveland Clinic uses a team approach to educate on this topic, relying on pharmacists, clinicians, and nurses to explain that there’s no real difference between the reference drug and its biosimilars, based on efficacy and safety data.
Physicians can also direct patients to patient-friendly resources, said Mr. Newmark. “By starting the conversation early, it ensures that when/if the time comes that your patient is switched to or chooses a biosimilar they will feel more confident because they have the knowledge to make decisions about their care.”
The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars , is a free resource for patients, he added.
It’s important that doctors also understand these products so they can explain to their patients what to expect, said the FDA’s Dr. Yim. The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit.
Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, American College of Gastroenterology, GlaxoSmithKline, American Gastroenterological Association, Pfizer, and a host of other companies . Dr. Regueiro has served on advisory boards and as a consultant for Abbvie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, BMS, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET Pharma Solutions,Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wolf, Dr. Yim, Dr. Oldfield, and Mr. Newmark have no financial conflicts of interest.
Gastroenterologists in 2023 will have more tools in their arsenal to treat patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. As many as 8-10 adalimumab biosimilars are anticipated to come on the market this year, giving mainstay drug Humira some vigorous competition.
Three scenarios will drive adalimumab biosimilar initiation: Insurance preference for the initial treatment of a newly diagnosed condition, a change in a patient’s insurance plan, or an insurance-mandated switch, said Edward C. Oldfield IV, MD, assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School’s division of gastroenterology in Norfolk.
“Outside of these scenarios, I would encourage patients to remain on their current biologic so long as cost and accessibility remain stable,” said Dr. Oldfield.
Many factors will contribute to the success of biosimilars. Will physicians be prescribing them? How are biosimilars placed on formularies and will they be given preferred status? How will manufacturers price their biosimilars? “We have to wait and see to get the answers to these questions,” said Steven Newmark, JD, MPA, chief legal officer and director of policy, Global Healthy Living Foundation/CreakyJoints, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in New York.
Prescribing biosimilars is no different than prescribing originator biologics, so providers should know how to use them, said Mr. Newmark. “Most important will be the availability of patient-friendly resources that providers can share with their patients to provide education about and confidence in using biosimilars,” he added.
Overall, biosimilars are a good thing, said Dr. Oldfield. “In the long run they should bring down costs and increase access to medications for our patients.”
Others are skeptical that the adalimumab biosimilars will save patients much money.
Biosimilar laws were created to lower costs. However, if a patient with insurance pays only $5 a month out of pocket for Humira – a drug that normally costs $7,000 without coverage – it’s unlikely they would want to switch unless there’s comparable savings from the biosimilar, said Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center and professor of medicine at Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Like generics, Humira biosimilars may face some initial backlash, said Dr. Hanauer.
2023 broadens scope of adalimumab treatments
The American Gastroenterological Association describes a biosimilar as something that’s “highly similar to, but not an exact copy of, a biologic reference product already approved” by the Food and Drug Administration. Congress under the 2010 Affordable Care Act created a special, abbreviated pathway to approval for biosimilars.
AbbVie’s Humira, the global revenue for which exceeded $20 billion in 2021, has long dominated the U.S. market on injectable treatments for autoimmune diseases. The popular drug faces some competition in 2023, however, following a series of legal settlements that allowed AbbVie competitors to release their own adalimumab biosimilars.
“So far, we haven’t seen biosimilars live up to their potential in the U.S. in the inflammatory space,” said Mr. Newmark. This may change, however. Previously, biosimilars have required infusion, which demanded more time, commitment, and travel from patients. “The new set of forthcoming Humira biosimilars are injectables, an administration method preferred by patients,” he said.
The FDA will approve a biosimilar if it determines that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product, and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological and reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product.
The agency to date has approved 8 adalimumab biosimilars. These include: Idacio (adalimumab-aacf, Fresenius Kabi); Amjevita (adalimumab-atto, Amgen); Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd, Organon); Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm, Boehringer Ingelheim); Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh from Coherus BioSciences); Hulio (adalimumab-fkjp; Mylan/Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics); Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz, Sandoz), and Abrilada (adalimumab-afzb, Pfizer).
“While FDA doesn’t formally track when products come to market, we know based on published reports that application holders for many of the currently FDA-approved biosimilars plan to market this year, starting with Amjevita being the first adalimumab biosimilar launched” in January, said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars at the agency.
At press time, two other companies (Celltrion and Alvotech/Teva) were awaiting FDA approval for their adalimumab biosimilar drugs.
Among the eight approved drugs, Cyltezo is the only one that has a designation for interchangeability with Humira.
An interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted at the pharmacy without the intervention of the prescriber – much like generics are substituted, depending on state laws, said Dr. Yim. “However, in terms of safety and effectiveness, FDA’s standards for approval mean that biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar products can be used in place of the reference product they were compared to.”
FDA-approved biosimilars undergo a rigorous evaluation for safety, effectiveness, and quality for their approved conditions of use, she continued. “Therefore, patients and health care providers can rely on a biosimilar to be as safe and effective for its approved uses as the original biological product.”
Remicade as a yard stick
Gastroenterologists dealt with this situation once before, when Remicade (infliximab) biosimilars came on the market in 2016, noted Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.
Remicade and Humira are both tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with the same mechanism of action and many of the same indications. “We already had that experience with Remicade and biosimilar switch 2 or 3 years ago. Now we’re talking about Humira,” said Dr. Regueiro.
Most GI doctors have prescribed one of the more common infliximab biosimilars (Inflectra or Renflexis), noted Dr. Oldfield.
Cardinal Health, which recently surveyed 300 gastroenterologists, rheumatologists, and dermatologists about adalimumab biosimilars, found that gastroenterologists had the highest comfort level in prescribing them. Their top concern, however, was changing a patient from adalimumab to an adalimumab biosimilar.
For most patients, Dr. Oldfield sees the Humira reference biologic and biosimilar as equivalent.
However, he said he would change a patient’s drug only if there were a good reason or if his hand was forced by insurance. He would not make the change for a patient who recently began induction with the reference biologic or a patient with highly active clinical disease.
“While there is limited data to support this, I would also have some qualms about changing a patient from reference biologic to a biosimilar if they previously had immune-mediated pharmacokinetic failure due to antibody development with a biologic and were currently doing well on their new biologic,” he said.
Those with a new ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s diagnosis who are initiating a biologic for the first time might consider a biosimilar. If a patient is transitioning from a reference biologic to a biosimilar, “I would want to make that change during a time of stable remission and with the recognition that the switch is not a temporary switch, but a long-term switch,” he continued.
A paper that reviewed 23 observational studies of adalimumab and other biosimilars found that switching biosimilars was safe and effective. But if possible, patients should minimize the number of switches until more robust long-term data are available, added Dr. Oldfield.
If a patient is apprehensive about switching to a new therapy, “one may need to be cognizant of the ‘nocebo’ effect in which there is an unexplained or unfavorable therapeutic effect after switching,” he said.
Other gastroenterologists voiced similar reservations about switching. “I won’t use an adalimumab biosimilar unless the patient requests it, the insurance requires it, or there is a cost advantage for the patient such that they prefer it,” said Doug Wolf, MD, an Atlanta gastroenterologist.
“There is no medical treatment advantage to a biosimilar, especially if switching from Humira,” added Dr. Wolf.
Insurance will guide treatment
Once a drug is approved for use by the FDA, that drug will be available in all 50 states. “Different private insurance formularies, as well as state Medicaid formularies, might affect the actual ability of patients to receive such drugs,” said Mr. Newmark.
Patients should consult with their providers and insurance companies to see what therapies are available, he advised.
Dr. Hanauer anticipates some headaches arising for patients and doctors alike when negotiating for a specific drug.
Cyltezo may be the only biosimilar interchangeable with Humira, but the third-party pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) could negotiate for one of the noninterchangeable ones. “On a yearly basis they could switch their preference,” said Dr. Hanauer.
In the Cardinal Health survey, more than 60% of respondents said they would feel comfortable prescribing an adalimumab biosimilar only with an interchangeability designation.
A PBM may offer a patient Cyltezo if it’s cheaper than Humira. If the patient insists on staying on Humira, then they’ll have to pay more for that drug on their payer’s formulary, said Dr. Hanauer. In a worst-case scenario, a physician may have to appeal on a patient’s behalf to get Humira if the insurer offers only the biosimilar.
Taking that step to appeal is a major hassle for the physician, and leads to extra back door costs as well, said Dr. Hanauer.
Humira manufacturer AbbVie, in turn, may offer discounts and rebates to the PBMs to put Humira on their formulary. “That’s the AbbVie negotiating power. It’s not that the cost is going to be that much different. It’s going to be that there are rebates and discounts that are going to make the cost different,” he added.
As a community physician, Dr. Oldfield has specific concerns about accessibility.
The ever-increasing burden of insurance documentation and prior authorization means it can take weeks or months to get these medications approved. “The addition of new biosimilars is a welcome entrance if it can get patients the medications they need when they need it,” he said.
When it comes to prescribing biologics, many physicians rely on ancillary staff for assistance. It’s a team effort to sift through all the paperwork, observed Dr. Oldfield.
“While many community GI practices have specialized staff to deal with prior authorizations, they are still a far cry from the IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] academic centers where there are often pharmacists, nursing specialists, and home-monitoring programs to check in on patients,” he explained.
Landscape on cost is uncertain
At present, little is known about the cost of the biosimilars and impact on future drug pricing, said Dr. Oldfield.
At least for Medicare, Humira biosimilars will be considered Medicare Part D drugs if used for a medically accepted indication, said a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Part D sponsors (pharmacy and therapeutic committees) “will make the determination as to whether Amjevita and other products will be added to their formularies,” said the spokesperson.
Patients never saw a significant cost savings with Remicade biosimilars. “I imagine the same would be true with biosimilars for Humira,” said Dr. Regueiro. Patients may see greater access to these drugs, however, because the insurance plan or the pharmacy plan will make them more readily available, he added.
The hope is that, as biosimilars are introduced, the price of the originator biologic will go down, said Mr. Newmark. “Therefore, we can expect Humira to be offered at a lower price as it faces competition. Where it will sit in comparison to the forthcoming biosimilars will depend on how much biosimilar companies drop their price and how much pressure will be on PBMs and insurers to cover the lowest list price drug,” he said.
AbbVie did not respond to several requests for comment.
Charitable patient assistance programs for biosimilars or biologics can help offset the price of copayments, Mr. Newmark offered.
Ideally, insurers will offer designated biosimilars at a reduced or even no out-of-pocket expense on their formularies. This should lead to a decreased administrative burden for approval with streamlined (or even removal) of prior authorizations for certain medications, said Dr. Oldfield.
Without insurance or medication assistance programs, the cost of biosimilars is prohibitively expensive, he added.
“Biosimilars have higher research, development, and manufacturing costs than what people conventionally think of [for] a generic medication.”
Educating, advising patients
Dr. Oldfield advised that gastroenterologists refer to biologics by the generic name rather than branded name when initiating therapy unless there is a very specific reason not to. “This approach should make the process more streamlined and less subjected to quick denials for brand-only requests as biosimilars start to assume a larger market share,” he said.
Uptake of the Humira biosimilars also will depend on proper education of physicians and patients and their comfort level with the biosimilars, said Dr. Regueiro. Cleveland Clinic uses a team approach to educate on this topic, relying on pharmacists, clinicians, and nurses to explain that there’s no real difference between the reference drug and its biosimilars, based on efficacy and safety data.
Physicians can also direct patients to patient-friendly resources, said Mr. Newmark. “By starting the conversation early, it ensures that when/if the time comes that your patient is switched to or chooses a biosimilar they will feel more confident because they have the knowledge to make decisions about their care.”
The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars , is a free resource for patients, he added.
It’s important that doctors also understand these products so they can explain to their patients what to expect, said the FDA’s Dr. Yim. The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit.
Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, American College of Gastroenterology, GlaxoSmithKline, American Gastroenterological Association, Pfizer, and a host of other companies . Dr. Regueiro has served on advisory boards and as a consultant for Abbvie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, BMS, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET Pharma Solutions,Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wolf, Dr. Yim, Dr. Oldfield, and Mr. Newmark have no financial conflicts of interest.
Gastroenterologists in 2023 will have more tools in their arsenal to treat patients with Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis. As many as 8-10 adalimumab biosimilars are anticipated to come on the market this year, giving mainstay drug Humira some vigorous competition.
Three scenarios will drive adalimumab biosimilar initiation: Insurance preference for the initial treatment of a newly diagnosed condition, a change in a patient’s insurance plan, or an insurance-mandated switch, said Edward C. Oldfield IV, MD, assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School’s division of gastroenterology in Norfolk.
“Outside of these scenarios, I would encourage patients to remain on their current biologic so long as cost and accessibility remain stable,” said Dr. Oldfield.
Many factors will contribute to the success of biosimilars. Will physicians be prescribing them? How are biosimilars placed on formularies and will they be given preferred status? How will manufacturers price their biosimilars? “We have to wait and see to get the answers to these questions,” said Steven Newmark, JD, MPA, chief legal officer and director of policy, Global Healthy Living Foundation/CreakyJoints, a nonprofit advocacy organization based in New York.
Prescribing biosimilars is no different than prescribing originator biologics, so providers should know how to use them, said Mr. Newmark. “Most important will be the availability of patient-friendly resources that providers can share with their patients to provide education about and confidence in using biosimilars,” he added.
Overall, biosimilars are a good thing, said Dr. Oldfield. “In the long run they should bring down costs and increase access to medications for our patients.”
Others are skeptical that the adalimumab biosimilars will save patients much money.
Biosimilar laws were created to lower costs. However, if a patient with insurance pays only $5 a month out of pocket for Humira – a drug that normally costs $7,000 without coverage – it’s unlikely they would want to switch unless there’s comparable savings from the biosimilar, said Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center and professor of medicine at Northwestern Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.
Like generics, Humira biosimilars may face some initial backlash, said Dr. Hanauer.
2023 broadens scope of adalimumab treatments
The American Gastroenterological Association describes a biosimilar as something that’s “highly similar to, but not an exact copy of, a biologic reference product already approved” by the Food and Drug Administration. Congress under the 2010 Affordable Care Act created a special, abbreviated pathway to approval for biosimilars.
AbbVie’s Humira, the global revenue for which exceeded $20 billion in 2021, has long dominated the U.S. market on injectable treatments for autoimmune diseases. The popular drug faces some competition in 2023, however, following a series of legal settlements that allowed AbbVie competitors to release their own adalimumab biosimilars.
“So far, we haven’t seen biosimilars live up to their potential in the U.S. in the inflammatory space,” said Mr. Newmark. This may change, however. Previously, biosimilars have required infusion, which demanded more time, commitment, and travel from patients. “The new set of forthcoming Humira biosimilars are injectables, an administration method preferred by patients,” he said.
The FDA will approve a biosimilar if it determines that the biological product is highly similar to the reference product, and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the biological and reference product in terms of the safety, purity, and potency of the product.
The agency to date has approved 8 adalimumab biosimilars. These include: Idacio (adalimumab-aacf, Fresenius Kabi); Amjevita (adalimumab-atto, Amgen); Hadlima (adalimumab-bwwd, Organon); Cyltezo (adalimumab-adbm, Boehringer Ingelheim); Yusimry (adalimumab-aqvh from Coherus BioSciences); Hulio (adalimumab-fkjp; Mylan/Fujifilm Kyowa Kirin Biologics); Hyrimoz (adalimumab-adaz, Sandoz), and Abrilada (adalimumab-afzb, Pfizer).
“While FDA doesn’t formally track when products come to market, we know based on published reports that application holders for many of the currently FDA-approved biosimilars plan to market this year, starting with Amjevita being the first adalimumab biosimilar launched” in January, said Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars at the agency.
At press time, two other companies (Celltrion and Alvotech/Teva) were awaiting FDA approval for their adalimumab biosimilar drugs.
Among the eight approved drugs, Cyltezo is the only one that has a designation for interchangeability with Humira.
An interchangeable biosimilar may be substituted at the pharmacy without the intervention of the prescriber – much like generics are substituted, depending on state laws, said Dr. Yim. “However, in terms of safety and effectiveness, FDA’s standards for approval mean that biosimilar or interchangeable biosimilar products can be used in place of the reference product they were compared to.”
FDA-approved biosimilars undergo a rigorous evaluation for safety, effectiveness, and quality for their approved conditions of use, she continued. “Therefore, patients and health care providers can rely on a biosimilar to be as safe and effective for its approved uses as the original biological product.”
Remicade as a yard stick
Gastroenterologists dealt with this situation once before, when Remicade (infliximab) biosimilars came on the market in 2016, noted Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute at the Cleveland Clinic.
Remicade and Humira are both tumor necrosis factor inhibitors with the same mechanism of action and many of the same indications. “We already had that experience with Remicade and biosimilar switch 2 or 3 years ago. Now we’re talking about Humira,” said Dr. Regueiro.
Most GI doctors have prescribed one of the more common infliximab biosimilars (Inflectra or Renflexis), noted Dr. Oldfield.
Cardinal Health, which recently surveyed 300 gastroenterologists, rheumatologists, and dermatologists about adalimumab biosimilars, found that gastroenterologists had the highest comfort level in prescribing them. Their top concern, however, was changing a patient from adalimumab to an adalimumab biosimilar.
For most patients, Dr. Oldfield sees the Humira reference biologic and biosimilar as equivalent.
However, he said he would change a patient’s drug only if there were a good reason or if his hand was forced by insurance. He would not make the change for a patient who recently began induction with the reference biologic or a patient with highly active clinical disease.
“While there is limited data to support this, I would also have some qualms about changing a patient from reference biologic to a biosimilar if they previously had immune-mediated pharmacokinetic failure due to antibody development with a biologic and were currently doing well on their new biologic,” he said.
Those with a new ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s diagnosis who are initiating a biologic for the first time might consider a biosimilar. If a patient is transitioning from a reference biologic to a biosimilar, “I would want to make that change during a time of stable remission and with the recognition that the switch is not a temporary switch, but a long-term switch,” he continued.
A paper that reviewed 23 observational studies of adalimumab and other biosimilars found that switching biosimilars was safe and effective. But if possible, patients should minimize the number of switches until more robust long-term data are available, added Dr. Oldfield.
If a patient is apprehensive about switching to a new therapy, “one may need to be cognizant of the ‘nocebo’ effect in which there is an unexplained or unfavorable therapeutic effect after switching,” he said.
Other gastroenterologists voiced similar reservations about switching. “I won’t use an adalimumab biosimilar unless the patient requests it, the insurance requires it, or there is a cost advantage for the patient such that they prefer it,” said Doug Wolf, MD, an Atlanta gastroenterologist.
“There is no medical treatment advantage to a biosimilar, especially if switching from Humira,” added Dr. Wolf.
Insurance will guide treatment
Once a drug is approved for use by the FDA, that drug will be available in all 50 states. “Different private insurance formularies, as well as state Medicaid formularies, might affect the actual ability of patients to receive such drugs,” said Mr. Newmark.
Patients should consult with their providers and insurance companies to see what therapies are available, he advised.
Dr. Hanauer anticipates some headaches arising for patients and doctors alike when negotiating for a specific drug.
Cyltezo may be the only biosimilar interchangeable with Humira, but the third-party pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) could negotiate for one of the noninterchangeable ones. “On a yearly basis they could switch their preference,” said Dr. Hanauer.
In the Cardinal Health survey, more than 60% of respondents said they would feel comfortable prescribing an adalimumab biosimilar only with an interchangeability designation.
A PBM may offer a patient Cyltezo if it’s cheaper than Humira. If the patient insists on staying on Humira, then they’ll have to pay more for that drug on their payer’s formulary, said Dr. Hanauer. In a worst-case scenario, a physician may have to appeal on a patient’s behalf to get Humira if the insurer offers only the biosimilar.
Taking that step to appeal is a major hassle for the physician, and leads to extra back door costs as well, said Dr. Hanauer.
Humira manufacturer AbbVie, in turn, may offer discounts and rebates to the PBMs to put Humira on their formulary. “That’s the AbbVie negotiating power. It’s not that the cost is going to be that much different. It’s going to be that there are rebates and discounts that are going to make the cost different,” he added.
As a community physician, Dr. Oldfield has specific concerns about accessibility.
The ever-increasing burden of insurance documentation and prior authorization means it can take weeks or months to get these medications approved. “The addition of new biosimilars is a welcome entrance if it can get patients the medications they need when they need it,” he said.
When it comes to prescribing biologics, many physicians rely on ancillary staff for assistance. It’s a team effort to sift through all the paperwork, observed Dr. Oldfield.
“While many community GI practices have specialized staff to deal with prior authorizations, they are still a far cry from the IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] academic centers where there are often pharmacists, nursing specialists, and home-monitoring programs to check in on patients,” he explained.
Landscape on cost is uncertain
At present, little is known about the cost of the biosimilars and impact on future drug pricing, said Dr. Oldfield.
At least for Medicare, Humira biosimilars will be considered Medicare Part D drugs if used for a medically accepted indication, said a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Part D sponsors (pharmacy and therapeutic committees) “will make the determination as to whether Amjevita and other products will be added to their formularies,” said the spokesperson.
Patients never saw a significant cost savings with Remicade biosimilars. “I imagine the same would be true with biosimilars for Humira,” said Dr. Regueiro. Patients may see greater access to these drugs, however, because the insurance plan or the pharmacy plan will make them more readily available, he added.
The hope is that, as biosimilars are introduced, the price of the originator biologic will go down, said Mr. Newmark. “Therefore, we can expect Humira to be offered at a lower price as it faces competition. Where it will sit in comparison to the forthcoming biosimilars will depend on how much biosimilar companies drop their price and how much pressure will be on PBMs and insurers to cover the lowest list price drug,” he said.
AbbVie did not respond to several requests for comment.
Charitable patient assistance programs for biosimilars or biologics can help offset the price of copayments, Mr. Newmark offered.
Ideally, insurers will offer designated biosimilars at a reduced or even no out-of-pocket expense on their formularies. This should lead to a decreased administrative burden for approval with streamlined (or even removal) of prior authorizations for certain medications, said Dr. Oldfield.
Without insurance or medication assistance programs, the cost of biosimilars is prohibitively expensive, he added.
“Biosimilars have higher research, development, and manufacturing costs than what people conventionally think of [for] a generic medication.”
Educating, advising patients
Dr. Oldfield advised that gastroenterologists refer to biologics by the generic name rather than branded name when initiating therapy unless there is a very specific reason not to. “This approach should make the process more streamlined and less subjected to quick denials for brand-only requests as biosimilars start to assume a larger market share,” he said.
Uptake of the Humira biosimilars also will depend on proper education of physicians and patients and their comfort level with the biosimilars, said Dr. Regueiro. Cleveland Clinic uses a team approach to educate on this topic, relying on pharmacists, clinicians, and nurses to explain that there’s no real difference between the reference drug and its biosimilars, based on efficacy and safety data.
Physicians can also direct patients to patient-friendly resources, said Mr. Newmark. “By starting the conversation early, it ensures that when/if the time comes that your patient is switched to or chooses a biosimilar they will feel more confident because they have the knowledge to make decisions about their care.”
The Global Healthy Living Foundation’s podcast, Breaking Down Biosimilars , is a free resource for patients, he added.
It’s important that doctors also understand these products so they can explain to their patients what to expect, said the FDA’s Dr. Yim. The FDA provides educational materials on its website, including a comprehensive curriculum toolkit.
Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, American College of Gastroenterology, GlaxoSmithKline, American Gastroenterological Association, Pfizer, and a host of other companies . Dr. Regueiro has served on advisory boards and as a consultant for Abbvie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, BMS, Organon, Amgen, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, Celgene, TARGET Pharma Solutions,Trellis, and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Wolf, Dr. Yim, Dr. Oldfield, and Mr. Newmark have no financial conflicts of interest.
Eight-week TB treatment strategy shows potential
A strategy for the
“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”
Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.
“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.
The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.
Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.
These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
TRUNCATE-TB
To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).
Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.
Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.
Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.
For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).
The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.
The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.
In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.
Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated
In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.
The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.
Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.
“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”
Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.
“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said.
“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”
The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.
“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”
The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”
The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A strategy for the
“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”
Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.
“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.
The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.
Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.
These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
TRUNCATE-TB
To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).
Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.
Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.
Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.
For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).
The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.
The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.
In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.
Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated
In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.
The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.
Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.
“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”
Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.
“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said.
“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”
The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.
“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”
The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”
The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A strategy for the
“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.
“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”
Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.
“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.
The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.
Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.
These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
TRUNCATE-TB
To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.
The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).
Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.
Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.
Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.
For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).
The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.
The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.
In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.
Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated
In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.
The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.
Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.
“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”
Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.
“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said.
“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”
The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.
“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”
The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”
The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CROI 2023
Diabetes drug tied to lower dementia risk
new research suggests.
Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.
However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.
“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.
This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.
The results were published online in Neurology.
Dose-response relationship
Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.
This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.
Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.
Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.
There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).
A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
Several limitations
The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).
The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.
The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).
“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.
However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.
The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.
There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
More data needed
In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”
However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.
They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.
They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.
“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.
For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.
However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.
“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.
This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.
The results were published online in Neurology.
Dose-response relationship
Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.
This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.
Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.
Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.
There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).
A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
Several limitations
The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).
The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.
The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).
“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.
However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.
The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.
There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
More data needed
In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”
However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.
They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.
They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.
“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.
For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests.
Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.
However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.
“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.
However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.
This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.
The results were published online in Neurology.
Dose-response relationship
Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.
This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.
Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.
Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.
Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.
There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).
A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
Several limitations
The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).
The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.
The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).
“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.
However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.
The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.
There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
More data needed
In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”
However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.
They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.
They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.
“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.
For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.
The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Tenecteplase noninferior to alteplase for ischemic stroke: TRACE-2
, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.
The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”
The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Single bolus
Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.
Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.
The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.
The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.
Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
Showed noninferiority
The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).
The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.
The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.
Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).
The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.
Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.
The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
Strong evidence
Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.
He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.
However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.
Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.
“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”
But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.
“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”
The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.
The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”
The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Single bolus
Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.
Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.
The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.
The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.
Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
Showed noninferiority
The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).
The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.
The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.
Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).
The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.
Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.
The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
Strong evidence
Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.
He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.
However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.
Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.
“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”
But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.
“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”
The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study has found. “This was a pivotal trial in establishing the safety and efficacy of tenecteplase as an alternative to alteplase in the thrombolytic treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 4.5 hours in Asian patients,” said study author Shuya Li, MD, associate chief physician, department of neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing.
The findings in this all-Chinese population should have an impact on the use of tenecteplase going forward, said Dr. Li. “The results provide further evidence to support a worldwide switch to tenecteplase as the preferred thrombolytic for acute ischemic stroke.”
The findings were presented at the 2023 International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Single bolus
Use of alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator [tPA]) has for years been the main approach to thrombolytic reperfusion therapy for patients with acute stroke, but tenecteplase has recently emerged as a potential successor.
Tenecteplase is a tPA produced by recombinant DNA technology. It has a relatively long half-life and can be delivered in a single bolus instead of requiring an hour-long infusion, as is the case with alteplase.
The phase 3 noninferiority Tenecteplase Reperfusion Therapy in Acute ischemic Cerebrovascular Events (TRACE-2) trial – the first of its kind in an Asian population – included 1,430 adult ischemic stroke patients at 53 Chinese centers. Patients had to have a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5-25 and either not be eligible for or have refused endovascular therapy.
The mean age of study participants was about 66 years, and the percentage of women was about 31%. The mean baseline NIHSS score was 7 in both groups, and the symptom-onset-to-needle time was similar at 180 minutes for the tenecteplase group and 178.5 minutes for the alteplase group.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive tenecteplase or alteplase within 4.5 hours of symptom onset.
Those in the tenecteplase group received 0.25 mg/kg of the drug in a single IV bolus (maximum dose, 25 mg). Control group members who were treated with alteplase were given the drug as a 10% bolus, with the remainder given as a 1-hour infusion (0.9 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 90 mg).
Showed noninferiority
The primary efficacy outcome was a modified Rankins scale (mRS) score of 0-1 at 90 days, which is considered excellent function. About 62% of tenecteplase patients and 58% of alteplase patients attained this outcome (risk ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.18).
The P value was .001 for noninferiority and .06 for superiority, but Dr. Li explained that these values may change when considering the site effect.
There were no statistically significant differences between the two drugs on secondary outcomes of favorable function. For example, 73% of tenecteplase patients and 72% of alteplase patients had an mRS score of 0-2 at 3 months, and 50% in the tenecteplase and 49% in the alteplase group improved by 4 or more points on the NIHSS, or had a score of 1 or less, at 24 hours.
The groups also had comparable scores on the European quality-of-life visual analogue scale and on the Barthel index, which measures functional independence related to personal care and mobility.
Tenecteplase also turned out to be as safe at alteplase. About 2% in both groups had symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 36 hours, and both groups had that same percentage for such hemorrhages within 90 days. As well, the groups had a similar rate of any intracranial hemorrhage within 90 days (6% and 7%).
The mortality rate was 7% in the tenecteplase group, compared with 5% in the alteplase group.
Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 86% and 87%, and serious AEs in 16% and 15%, of the tenecteplase and alteplase groups, respectively, again with no statistically significant differences.
The research team aims to test the effectiveness of tenecteplase in other stroke patients, including those with minor strokes, those receiving thrombolysis in a later window, and those receiving endovascular therapy, said Dr. Li.
Strong evidence
Commenting on the study findings, Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chair of neurology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, said it is important to determine the efficacy of tenecteplase among Asians, as they represent “an entirely different population” with unique concerns, such as bleeding complications from anticoagulants.
He noted an advantage of tenecteplase is ease of administration. “You don’t have to go through the loading dose and then the 1-hour infusion,” which poses an “additional hassle” when transferring patients between institutions, he said.
However, he noted that a possible “downside” to having both drugs available in the emergency department is “using the wrong drug at the wrong dose” because of their similar sounding names.
Also commenting on the study, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he welcomes another trial that confirms that these two drugs are biologically similar.
“I’m very glad this trial was done because it adds another very strong piece of evidence of equivalency.”
But the two drugs are not the same in some important respects, said Dr. Jovin, whose center switched to using tenecteplase almost 3 years ago. That switch has resulted in cutting 17 minutes from the door-to-needle time “which is quite significant,” he said.
“There’s no question that once we used tenecteplase in lieu of tPA, it’s been just so much easier to administer and affects the interhospital transfer protocols, because you’re not transferring the patient with a critical care IV. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”
The study received funding from the National Science and Technology Major Project, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the China Shijiazhuang Pharmaceutical Company Recomgen Pharmaceutical (Guangzhou). Dr. Li, Dr. Goldstein, and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
Novel neuroprotective agent promising in stroke
preliminary results of a first-in-human study show.
The findings illustrate that it is possible to improve outcomes for stroke patients “not only with reperfusion therapy but with neuroprotectants,” study author Macarena Hernandez, PhD, associate professor, University Complutense, Madrid, told this news organization.
Dr. Hernandez said she hopes these positive results will spur investigation into other neuroprotective agents.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Best doses
The study investigated ApTOLL, which blocks the TOLL-like receptor 4 (TLR4) that induces inflammation after a stroke. Previous studies found that ApTOLL protected brain tissue in animal models of stroke.
The phase 1B part of the study found no safety issues and determined the best two doses to be used in phase 2A were 0.05 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg.
The analysis included 139 patients at 14 centers in Spain and France (mean age, about 70 years; 42% women) who had a large-vessel occlusion and were eligible for endovascular therapy.
“Our aim was to have a very homogeneous population” to try to replicate in humans what had worked in animals, another study author, Marc Ribó, MD, interventional neurologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, told this news organization.
Study participants had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 5-10, and estimated infarct core volume on CT-perfusion was 5-70 mL. All were treated within 6 hours of stroke onset.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive the low dose of the drug, the high dose of the drug, or placebo. The drug was administered intravenously over a 30-minute period just prior to the groin puncture for the thrombectomy procedure.
“So, the drug had already started to work when they underwent the usual standard practice, the thrombectomy,” said Dr. Ribó.
Those who were eligible also received tissue plasminogen activator.
The primary endpoint was safety, including death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and recurrent stroke.
Lower mortality
At 90 days, there was a statistically significant lower mortality rate in the high-dose group, compared with the group that received placebo (4.76% vs. 18.18%).
The mortality rate was 26.19% in the low-dose group, but Dr. Ribó stressed that this dose was a quarter of the higher dose and so performed “much more like placebo.”
The higher dose also yielded a better SICH outcome (4.76% of patients vs. 7.27% for placebo and 7.14% for the lower dose). And it was superior in terms of brain edema (2.4% of the population vs. 7.3% for the placebo and 4.8% for the low-dose groups).
About 7.1% of the high-dose group, 3.7% of the placebo group, and 4.8% of the low-dose group had a recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke.
A secondary efficacy endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 72 hours. Here, for the higher-dose group, mean infarct volume was reduced, compared with the patients who received placebo (–29.31 cc; 90% confidence interval, –49.28 to –9.34).
This higher dose was also superior for the secondary outcome of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 72 hours and for the disability outcome on the modified Rankin Score (mRS).
Clear shift in disability
“There was a clear shift toward less disability across levels of the mRS score in the high-dose group at 90 days,” said Dr. Ribó.
He added that he and his colleagues are “very happy” with these results, as they reflect “a consistency” of outcomes.
“We observed that the infarct volumes were lower in the high-dose group, and that led to a significant lower NIH score, meaning less clinical neurological symptoms at 72 hours, and finally, this led to less disability at 90 days.”
These results are “very exciting,” Dr. Hernandez added. “This is the first neuroprotectant that has demonstrated this acute effect in reducing deaths, in reducing the infarct volume and improving functionality long-term in patients treated with the higher dose.”
Dr. Ribó noted the treatment would eventually be used in addition to reperfusion therapy. “It’s not competing with reperfusion treatment; it’s an additional layer” of treatment.
Although it would initially be offered only to patients eligible for thrombectomy, researchers will explore the drug’s effectiveness for other stroke patients, said Dr. Ribó. “We wanted to secure this indication, and from there, progressively expand to other profiles of stroke patients, and even to patients with intracranial hemorrhage.”
The study confirmed the safety of the drug. “There were no safety issues at all,” said Dr. Ribó. “We were initially concerned that an anti-inflammatory in these patients could lead to higher rates of infections, but this was absolutely not the case.”
The next step is to confirm the effects in a larger, multicenter study, which is planned to launch at the end of this year, said Dr. Hernandez.
‘Very robust results’
In a comment, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, professor of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said that, while this was a small early-phase study, the results are “very robust.”
“The authors demonstrated proof of a neuroprotective effect; they showed at 90 days that the death rates were substantially reduced by about four times – 4% vs. 18% – and the size of the damaged tissue at about 72 hours was reduced by 40%,” said Dr. Gorelick, who did not participate in the study.
He also noted that the disability was “less pronounced” at 90 days in the 0.2 mg/kg group.
“So overall, these are very encouraging results,” said Dr. Gorelick. “We have had a lot of difficulty finding neuroprotectant drugs that work, and this drug, in combination with endovascular therapy, seems to be very promising.”
However, he stressed the drug “is not ready for prime-time practice.”
“The proof in the pudding will be in the large-scale main phase 3 trials,” he added.
The study was funded by aptaTargets. Dr. Hernandez is chief scientific officer at aptaTargets. Dr. Ribó is an adviser at AptaTargets; a consultant at Medtronic; has ownership interest in Anaconda and NoraHealth; is a consultant for Cerenovus and Philips; and has stock options at Methink. Dr. Gorelick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
preliminary results of a first-in-human study show.
The findings illustrate that it is possible to improve outcomes for stroke patients “not only with reperfusion therapy but with neuroprotectants,” study author Macarena Hernandez, PhD, associate professor, University Complutense, Madrid, told this news organization.
Dr. Hernandez said she hopes these positive results will spur investigation into other neuroprotective agents.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Best doses
The study investigated ApTOLL, which blocks the TOLL-like receptor 4 (TLR4) that induces inflammation after a stroke. Previous studies found that ApTOLL protected brain tissue in animal models of stroke.
The phase 1B part of the study found no safety issues and determined the best two doses to be used in phase 2A were 0.05 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg.
The analysis included 139 patients at 14 centers in Spain and France (mean age, about 70 years; 42% women) who had a large-vessel occlusion and were eligible for endovascular therapy.
“Our aim was to have a very homogeneous population” to try to replicate in humans what had worked in animals, another study author, Marc Ribó, MD, interventional neurologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, told this news organization.
Study participants had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 5-10, and estimated infarct core volume on CT-perfusion was 5-70 mL. All were treated within 6 hours of stroke onset.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive the low dose of the drug, the high dose of the drug, or placebo. The drug was administered intravenously over a 30-minute period just prior to the groin puncture for the thrombectomy procedure.
“So, the drug had already started to work when they underwent the usual standard practice, the thrombectomy,” said Dr. Ribó.
Those who were eligible also received tissue plasminogen activator.
The primary endpoint was safety, including death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and recurrent stroke.
Lower mortality
At 90 days, there was a statistically significant lower mortality rate in the high-dose group, compared with the group that received placebo (4.76% vs. 18.18%).
The mortality rate was 26.19% in the low-dose group, but Dr. Ribó stressed that this dose was a quarter of the higher dose and so performed “much more like placebo.”
The higher dose also yielded a better SICH outcome (4.76% of patients vs. 7.27% for placebo and 7.14% for the lower dose). And it was superior in terms of brain edema (2.4% of the population vs. 7.3% for the placebo and 4.8% for the low-dose groups).
About 7.1% of the high-dose group, 3.7% of the placebo group, and 4.8% of the low-dose group had a recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke.
A secondary efficacy endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 72 hours. Here, for the higher-dose group, mean infarct volume was reduced, compared with the patients who received placebo (–29.31 cc; 90% confidence interval, –49.28 to –9.34).
This higher dose was also superior for the secondary outcome of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 72 hours and for the disability outcome on the modified Rankin Score (mRS).
Clear shift in disability
“There was a clear shift toward less disability across levels of the mRS score in the high-dose group at 90 days,” said Dr. Ribó.
He added that he and his colleagues are “very happy” with these results, as they reflect “a consistency” of outcomes.
“We observed that the infarct volumes were lower in the high-dose group, and that led to a significant lower NIH score, meaning less clinical neurological symptoms at 72 hours, and finally, this led to less disability at 90 days.”
These results are “very exciting,” Dr. Hernandez added. “This is the first neuroprotectant that has demonstrated this acute effect in reducing deaths, in reducing the infarct volume and improving functionality long-term in patients treated with the higher dose.”
Dr. Ribó noted the treatment would eventually be used in addition to reperfusion therapy. “It’s not competing with reperfusion treatment; it’s an additional layer” of treatment.
Although it would initially be offered only to patients eligible for thrombectomy, researchers will explore the drug’s effectiveness for other stroke patients, said Dr. Ribó. “We wanted to secure this indication, and from there, progressively expand to other profiles of stroke patients, and even to patients with intracranial hemorrhage.”
The study confirmed the safety of the drug. “There were no safety issues at all,” said Dr. Ribó. “We were initially concerned that an anti-inflammatory in these patients could lead to higher rates of infections, but this was absolutely not the case.”
The next step is to confirm the effects in a larger, multicenter study, which is planned to launch at the end of this year, said Dr. Hernandez.
‘Very robust results’
In a comment, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, professor of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said that, while this was a small early-phase study, the results are “very robust.”
“The authors demonstrated proof of a neuroprotective effect; they showed at 90 days that the death rates were substantially reduced by about four times – 4% vs. 18% – and the size of the damaged tissue at about 72 hours was reduced by 40%,” said Dr. Gorelick, who did not participate in the study.
He also noted that the disability was “less pronounced” at 90 days in the 0.2 mg/kg group.
“So overall, these are very encouraging results,” said Dr. Gorelick. “We have had a lot of difficulty finding neuroprotectant drugs that work, and this drug, in combination with endovascular therapy, seems to be very promising.”
However, he stressed the drug “is not ready for prime-time practice.”
“The proof in the pudding will be in the large-scale main phase 3 trials,” he added.
The study was funded by aptaTargets. Dr. Hernandez is chief scientific officer at aptaTargets. Dr. Ribó is an adviser at AptaTargets; a consultant at Medtronic; has ownership interest in Anaconda and NoraHealth; is a consultant for Cerenovus and Philips; and has stock options at Methink. Dr. Gorelick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
preliminary results of a first-in-human study show.
The findings illustrate that it is possible to improve outcomes for stroke patients “not only with reperfusion therapy but with neuroprotectants,” study author Macarena Hernandez, PhD, associate professor, University Complutense, Madrid, told this news organization.
Dr. Hernandez said she hopes these positive results will spur investigation into other neuroprotective agents.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Best doses
The study investigated ApTOLL, which blocks the TOLL-like receptor 4 (TLR4) that induces inflammation after a stroke. Previous studies found that ApTOLL protected brain tissue in animal models of stroke.
The phase 1B part of the study found no safety issues and determined the best two doses to be used in phase 2A were 0.05 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg.
The analysis included 139 patients at 14 centers in Spain and France (mean age, about 70 years; 42% women) who had a large-vessel occlusion and were eligible for endovascular therapy.
“Our aim was to have a very homogeneous population” to try to replicate in humans what had worked in animals, another study author, Marc Ribó, MD, interventional neurologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, told this news organization.
Study participants had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 5-10, and estimated infarct core volume on CT-perfusion was 5-70 mL. All were treated within 6 hours of stroke onset.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive the low dose of the drug, the high dose of the drug, or placebo. The drug was administered intravenously over a 30-minute period just prior to the groin puncture for the thrombectomy procedure.
“So, the drug had already started to work when they underwent the usual standard practice, the thrombectomy,” said Dr. Ribó.
Those who were eligible also received tissue plasminogen activator.
The primary endpoint was safety, including death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and recurrent stroke.
Lower mortality
At 90 days, there was a statistically significant lower mortality rate in the high-dose group, compared with the group that received placebo (4.76% vs. 18.18%).
The mortality rate was 26.19% in the low-dose group, but Dr. Ribó stressed that this dose was a quarter of the higher dose and so performed “much more like placebo.”
The higher dose also yielded a better SICH outcome (4.76% of patients vs. 7.27% for placebo and 7.14% for the lower dose). And it was superior in terms of brain edema (2.4% of the population vs. 7.3% for the placebo and 4.8% for the low-dose groups).
About 7.1% of the high-dose group, 3.7% of the placebo group, and 4.8% of the low-dose group had a recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke.
A secondary efficacy endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 72 hours. Here, for the higher-dose group, mean infarct volume was reduced, compared with the patients who received placebo (–29.31 cc; 90% confidence interval, –49.28 to –9.34).
This higher dose was also superior for the secondary outcome of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 72 hours and for the disability outcome on the modified Rankin Score (mRS).
Clear shift in disability
“There was a clear shift toward less disability across levels of the mRS score in the high-dose group at 90 days,” said Dr. Ribó.
He added that he and his colleagues are “very happy” with these results, as they reflect “a consistency” of outcomes.
“We observed that the infarct volumes were lower in the high-dose group, and that led to a significant lower NIH score, meaning less clinical neurological symptoms at 72 hours, and finally, this led to less disability at 90 days.”
These results are “very exciting,” Dr. Hernandez added. “This is the first neuroprotectant that has demonstrated this acute effect in reducing deaths, in reducing the infarct volume and improving functionality long-term in patients treated with the higher dose.”
Dr. Ribó noted the treatment would eventually be used in addition to reperfusion therapy. “It’s not competing with reperfusion treatment; it’s an additional layer” of treatment.
Although it would initially be offered only to patients eligible for thrombectomy, researchers will explore the drug’s effectiveness for other stroke patients, said Dr. Ribó. “We wanted to secure this indication, and from there, progressively expand to other profiles of stroke patients, and even to patients with intracranial hemorrhage.”
The study confirmed the safety of the drug. “There were no safety issues at all,” said Dr. Ribó. “We were initially concerned that an anti-inflammatory in these patients could lead to higher rates of infections, but this was absolutely not the case.”
The next step is to confirm the effects in a larger, multicenter study, which is planned to launch at the end of this year, said Dr. Hernandez.
‘Very robust results’
In a comment, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, professor of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said that, while this was a small early-phase study, the results are “very robust.”
“The authors demonstrated proof of a neuroprotective effect; they showed at 90 days that the death rates were substantially reduced by about four times – 4% vs. 18% – and the size of the damaged tissue at about 72 hours was reduced by 40%,” said Dr. Gorelick, who did not participate in the study.
He also noted that the disability was “less pronounced” at 90 days in the 0.2 mg/kg group.
“So overall, these are very encouraging results,” said Dr. Gorelick. “We have had a lot of difficulty finding neuroprotectant drugs that work, and this drug, in combination with endovascular therapy, seems to be very promising.”
However, he stressed the drug “is not ready for prime-time practice.”
“The proof in the pudding will be in the large-scale main phase 3 trials,” he added.
The study was funded by aptaTargets. Dr. Hernandez is chief scientific officer at aptaTargets. Dr. Ribó is an adviser at AptaTargets; a consultant at Medtronic; has ownership interest in Anaconda and NoraHealth; is a consultant for Cerenovus and Philips; and has stock options at Methink. Dr. Gorelick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023